FAQ suggestion 3.1 Flanagan's books

[Peter Michaux]

Hi,

For section 3.1 it might be worth noting that the fourth edition of
Flanagan's JavaScript is out of print but a fifth edition is available.

http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ3_1

I think it would also be worth including link directly to the errata
for each book and a comment emphasizing the importance of checking the
errata.

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/jscript4/errata/

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/jscript5/errata/

I have submitted some errata reports to Flanagan for the fifth edition
and he has been very appreciative. I think it would be good to even
briefly encourage sending errata reports in the FAQ. After all, many
readers (like me) confused by errata ask questions on c.l.j.

Perhaps a brief comment about why some c.l.j. regulars are hesitant in
recommending Flanagan's book but why they still do recommend it.

I am very happy that I have both the fourth and fifth editions since
some important information was removed when making the fifth. It makes
me think I should get the first, second and third editions too.

Peter

 

[Richard Cornford]

For section 3.1 it might be worth noting that the fourth
edition of Flanagan's JavaScript is out of print but a
fifth edition is available.

http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ3_1

My thoughts were that the availability of the 5th edition should be
stated along with a note saying that although the 5th edition is
considerably expanded the proportion of poor advice and sub-standard
code has not increased between the 4th edition and the 5th (which is the
impression I have from what I have had time to read of the 5th edition).

That could stand until some regulars have time to actually (read and)
endorse the book (which I would not do, in the same way as I was not
among those who endorsed the 4th edition).

Perhaps a brief comment about why some c.l.j. regulars are
hesitant in recommending Flanagan's book but why they still
do recommend it.

<snip>

How many actually do recommend it? Generally the most that is said of it
is that is far superior to any other book available. That is not
necessarily a recommendation , more a condemnation of the general
quality of javascript books.

Richard.

 

[Randy Webb]

Peter Michaux said the following on 11/26/2006 3:25 AM:

Hi,

For section 3.1 it might be worth noting that the fourth edition of
Flanagan's JavaScript is out of print but a fifth edition is available.

http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ3_1

That entry, in the revised xml file to date, has been changed to the
Fifth Edition.

The .xml file is at http://jibbering.com/faq/newfaq/index.xml but the
index.html file that is created from it hasn't been created yet.

I think it would also be worth including link directly to the errata
for each book and a comment emphasizing the importance of checking the
errata.

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/jscript4/errata/

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/jscript5/errata/

Errata for the Fifth Edition is now added.

I have submitted some errata reports to Flanagan for the fifth edition
and he has been very appreciative. I think it would be good to even
briefly encourage sending errata reports in the FAQ. After all, many
readers (like me) confused by errata ask questions on c.l.j.

I don't think doing technical support, or even endorsing it, is
appropriate in the clj FAQ. Although, if the consensus is to add it, I
will add it

 

[Martin Honnen]

The .xml file is at http://jibbering.com/faq/newfaq/index.xml

It is currently not well-formed XML:

XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag. Expected: </NEWSGROUP>.
Location: http://jibbering.com/faq/newfaq/index.xml
Line Number 64, Column 8: </P>
-------^

The problem is that
<NEWSGROUP>comp.lang.javascript<NEWSGROUP>
should be
<NEWSGROUP>comp.lang.javascript</NEWSGROUP>
I think.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Peter Michaux said:

That entry, in the revised xml file to date, has been
changed to the Fifth Edition.

<snip>

But to date none of the regulars here has endorsed the 5th edition
(unless you are endorsing it now). Otherwise changing just the edition
number renders the statement false.

Richard.

 

[Mark Szlazak]

The author David Flanagan has a blog with corrections to the 5th
edition, like the poor advise he gave on "Constructor and Method
Chaining Convention for JavaScript." Add his link as well.
http://www.davidflanagan.com/

 

[Randy Webb]

Martin Honnen said the following on 11/26/2006 12:42 PM:

It is currently not well-formed XML:

XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag. Expected: </NEWSGROUP>.
Location: http://jibbering.com/faq/newfaq/index.xml
Line Number 64, Column 8: </P>
-------^

The problem is that
<NEWSGROUP>comp.lang.javascript<NEWSGROUP>
should be
<NEWSGROUP>comp.lang.javascript</NEWSGROUP>
I think.

Yes, that was wrong. After fixing that one and about 6 other errors I
had, the newer version of the FAQ I am working on is here:

<URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/newfaq/>

There are probably still 100 or so things to change/revise/update but
that is a start.

 

[Randy Webb]

Richard Cornford said the following on 11/26/2006 1:08 PM:

<snip>

But to date none of the regulars here has endorsed the 5th edition
(unless you are endorsing it now).

Very true and it has been reworded.

Otherwise changing just the edition number renders the statement false.

<URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/newfaq/#FAQ3_1 >

Thoughts?

 

[Richard Cornford]

Richard Cornford said the following on 11/26/2006 1:08 PM:

Very true and it has been reworded.


<URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/newfaq/#FAQ3_1 >

Thoughts?

That seems fine to me.

Richard.

 

[Peter Michaux]

<URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/newfaq/#FAQ3_1 >

Thoughts?

Perhaps it is worth noting that the fifth edition is quite different
and that is why it cannot be endorsed without review. Maybe something
like "there have been substantial content deletions and additions"

Some typos:

Davaid Flanagans Blog Site:

vs.

David Flanagan's Blog Site:

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message
<[email protected]>, Sun, 26 Nov

Would you extend your moderate endorsement of Flanagan (presumed as I
don't recall you saying that any rival is better) to books such as
O'Reilly's "JavaScript, Das umfassende Referenzwerk"?

While the FAQ should not take much notice of other languages natural or
artificial, ISTM right to add, at least, "and translation(s)" to the
recommendation of "The Definitive Guide", since it would be a pity if
any naive German-speaker were deceived into buying the wrong version.

 

[Randy Webb]

Peter Michaux said the following on 11/26/2006 3:07 PM:

Perhaps it is worth noting that the fifth edition is quite different
and that is why it cannot be endorsed without review. Maybe something
like "there have been substantial content deletions and additions"

Some typos:

Davaid Flanagans Blog Site:

vs.

David Flanagan's Blog Site:

It is corrected in my local copy. It will get updated in the online
version after it is reviewed (Another thread was started for review of
that entire document).

 

[Randy Webb]

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 11/26/2006 3:22 PM:

In comp.lang.javascript message
<[email protected]>, Sun, 26 Nov

Would you extend your moderate endorsement of Flanagan (presumed as I
don't recall you saying that any rival is better) to books such as
O'Reilly's "JavaScript, Das umfassende Referenzwerk"?

While the FAQ should not take much notice of other languages natural or
artificial, ISTM right to add, at least, "and translation(s)" to the
recommendation of "The Definitive Guide", since it would be a pity if
any naive German-speaker were deceived into buying the wrong version.

If the German version is of the same quality as the English version and
someone can provide the pertinent material for the entry then there
isn't a problem adding it.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message

Some typos:

Davaid Flanagans Blog Site:

vs.

David Flanagan's Blog Site:

A number of typos can be found by pasting the whole of a browser's
display of FAQ 8.1 into MS Word. Doing so would have found both of
those, if they had been present.

Of course, it gives a lot of false positives, but those are easily
ignored - just right-click, ignore all at the first "Moomin", for
example.

Its spelling and grammar suggestions are on the whole worth looking at,
for "normal" text, but are not necessarily either correct or complete.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>,

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 11/26/2006 3:22 PM:

If the German version is of the same quality as the English version and
someone can provide the pertinent material for the entry then there
isn't a problem adding it.

I do not see any need for, and did not suggest, that.

It's a good idea to read the newsgroup and its old FAQ. See below.