FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript? (2008-10-08)

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by FAQ server, Oct 8, 2008.

  1. FAQ server

    FAQ server Guest

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:

    JavaScript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
    ISBN:0-596-10199-6

    The errata should be read along with the book.

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

    Errata:

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


    --
    Postings such as this are automatically sent once a day. Their
    goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
    the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html.
    The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers. The sendings of these
    daily posts are proficiently hosted by http://www.pair.com.
     
    FAQ server, Oct 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. FAQ server wrote:
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:
    >
    > JavaScript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
    > ISBN:0-596-10199-6


    s/Most/Some/

    This regular not included, given the number of inaccuracies, misconceptions,
    and plain errors in it.


    PointedEars
    --
    var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
    ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. FAQ server wrote:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    > FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:

    <snip>

    This is completely the wrong tone to take for this section. For a very
    long time no books were included in the section (though the section
    existed and stated that no books were regarded as being good enough to
    be endorsed). When David Flanagan's book was included it was because a
    belief had been expressed that at least some book should be included and
    that book was the only book that anyone (worth listening to) was willing
    to propose (and that was just two individuals at the time).

    The wording should reflect the fact that David Flanagan's book got
    included by the skin of its teeth, against some opposition, on a
    minority endorsement, and as the least bad alternative rather than
    anything like "the best".

    The original wording for the entry: "The only book currently endorsed by
    c.l.j. regulars is: JavaScript: The Definitive Guide ... ", was an
    acurte statemnt, even if it was a bit ambiguous about exactly how few
    regulars were willing to endorese the book in practice.

    (Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a good idea
    as the group's name is all lower case.)

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Oct 8, 2008
    #3
  4. FAQ server

    dhtml Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > FAQ server wrote:
    >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
    >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:
    >>
    >> JavaScript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
    >> ISBN:0-596-10199-6

    >
    > s/Most/Some/
    >
    > This regular not included, given the number of inaccuracies, misconceptions,
    > and plain errors in it.
    >


    I removed the text altogether. The book is still listed.

    I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.

    I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping by a nearby
    book store.

    Garrett

    >
    > PointedEars
     
    dhtml, Oct 8, 2008
    #4
  5. FAQ server

    dhtml Guest

    Richard Cornford wrote:
    > FAQ server wrote:
    >> ----------------------------------------------------------
    >> FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
    >> ----------------------------------------------------------
    >>



    > (Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a good idea
    > as the group's name is all lower case.)
    >


    CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation. It could even very well go in an
    abbr tag:

    <abbr title="comp.lang.javascript">CLJ</abbr>

    It's not like laser or radar or scuba. Those are acronyms that can be
    pronounced and they've turned into simple words. I wouldn't probably
    understand anyone if they tried to pronounce "clj". "

    If written c.l.j, it would be ambiguous with comp.lang.java, if written
    as "clj", it isn't correctly abbreviated as other things typically are
    (FAQ, XML, LSD, WTF, et c) and it doesn't stand out as much.

    And FAQ is all lowercase words, too.

    Garrett

    > Richard.
     
    dhtml, Oct 8, 2008
    #5
  6. FAQ server

    Stevo Guest

    dhtml wrote:
    > It's not like laser or radar or scuba. Those are acronyms that can be
    > pronounced and they've turned into simple words. I wouldn't probably
    > understand anyone if they tried to pronounce "clj". "


    All acronyms can be pronounced. That's what makes them acronyms :)
    </pedantic>
     
    Stevo, Oct 8, 2008
    #6
  7. On Oct 8, 6:33 am, dhtml wrote:
    > Richard Cornford wrote:
    >> FAQ server wrote:
    >>> ----------------------------------------------------------
    >>> FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
    >>> ----------------------------------------------------------

    >
    >> (Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a
    >> good idea as the group's name is all lower case.)

    >
    > CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation.


    In what possible sense? If "CLJ" is intended as a label for the
    comp.lang.javascirpt Usenet newsgroup "use" anything? If you mean
    contributors to the group use CLJ to refer to the group then that is
    only a tiny (if vociferous) minority and my judgment would be that
    historically "c.l.j" has been the most commonly employed shorthand
    when referring to the group (with "c.l.js" coming second).

    > It could even very well go in an
    > abbr tag:
    >
    > <abbr title="comp.lang.javascript">CLJ</abbr>
    >
    > It's not like laser or radar or scuba. Those are acronyms that can be
    > pronounced and they've turned into simple words. I wouldn't probably
    > understand anyone if they tried to pronounce "clj". "
    >
    > If written c.l.j, it would be ambiguous with comp.lang.java,


    Not any more likely to be confused with comp.lang.java than CLJ.

    > if written as "clj", it isn't correctly abbreviated as
    > other things typically are (FAQ, XML, LSD, WTF, et c)
    > and it doesn't stand out as much.


    So don't do that.

    > And FAQ is all lowercase words, too.


    That, very self-evidently, is not true.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Oct 8, 2008
    #7
  8. dhtml wrote:
    > Richard Cornford wrote:
    >> FAQ server wrote:
    >>> ----------------------------------------------------------
    >>> FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
    >>> ----------------------------------------------------------

    >>
    >> (Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a good idea
    >> as the group's name is all lower case.)

    >
    > CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation. It could even very well go in an
    > abbr tag:
    >
    > <abbr title="comp.lang.javascript">CLJ</abbr>
    >
    > It's not like laser or radar or scuba. Those are acronyms that can be
    > pronounced and they've turned into simple words. I wouldn't probably
    > understand anyone if they tried to pronounce "clj". "


    No matter the (im)possibility of pronunciation, I would regard CLJ an
    acronym (and use the `acronym' element) -- if the newsgroup name contained
    those uppercase characters. Since it does not, it should be written in
    lowercase and marked up an acronym nonetheless.

    YMMV, see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym>.


    PointedEars
    --
    Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
    a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
    when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
    computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 8, 2008
    #8
  9. FAQ server

    Stevo Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > No matter the (im)possibility of pronunciation, I would regard CLJ an
    > acronym (and use the `acronym' element) -- if the newsgroup name contained
    > those uppercase characters. Since it does not, it should be written in
    > lowercase and marked up an acronym nonetheless.
    > YMMV, see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym>.
    > PointedEars


    It's not an acronym though.

    Acronym = "word" made up of the initials components in a phrase or name
    and can be used in a sentence in the same way as any regular word and
    pronounced as a word. Examples: RAM, ROM, LASER, RADAR, BOGOF.

    Initialism = a sequence of letters made up of the initials components in
    a phrase or name but cannot be pronounced as a word. Instead, the
    letters are read out one at a time. Examples: CPU, CIA, FBI, CLJ.

    Both acronyms and initialisms are subsets of abreviations.

    That's what the wikipedia link you posted say also.
     
    Stevo, Oct 8, 2008
    #9
  10. FAQ server

    dhtml Guest

    Stevo wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >> No matter the (im)possibility of pronunciation, I would regard CLJ an
    >> acronym (and use the `acronym' element) -- if the newsgroup name
    >> contained
    >> those uppercase characters. Since it does not, it should be written in
    >> lowercase and marked up an acronym nonetheless.
    >> YMMV, see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym>.
    >> PointedEars

    >
    > It's not an acronym though.
    >
    > Acronym = "word" made up of the initials components in a phrase or name
    > and can be used in a sentence in the same way as any regular word and
    > pronounced as a word. Examples: RAM, ROM, LASER, RADAR, BOGOF.
    >
    > Initialism = a sequence of letters made up of the initials components in
    > a phrase or name but cannot be pronounced as a word. Instead, the
    > letters are read out one at a time. Examples: CPU, CIA, FBI, CLJ.
    >


    Isn't an "initialism" supposed to have all upper case letters? I can't
    think of other examples where this is not true. That page lists that too.

    When reading a long string of text, CLJ stands out more than clj does.


    > Both acronyms and initialisms are subsets of abreviations.
    >
    > That's what the wikipedia link you posted say also.


    The wikipedia link lists some "initalisims" and they are all
    capitalized, even when the text would not be.

    # FAQ: ([fæk] or ef a cue) frequently asked questions
    # DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid
    # IRA (for individual retirement account)

    There are a few cases of Wikipedia capitalizing the aforementioned, as
    they refer to page titles within Wikipedia.


    Garrett
     
    dhtml, Oct 8, 2008
    #10
  11. On Oct 8, 2:50 am, dhtml <> wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > > FAQ server wrote:


    > >> Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:

    >
    > >> JavaScript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
    > >> ISBN:0-596-10199-6

    >
    > > s/Most/Some/


    "Most" is sufficient, fortunately, to exclude Thomas Lahn.

    > I removed the text altogether. The book is still listed.


    The text should be restored. It was fairly recently agreed to
    represent the general view of the newsgroup, arrant pedants
    dissenting. Alternatively, use "The book most believed to be best by
    CLJ regulars is :" which does not require a majority. Of course, "CLJ
    regulars" is wrong; there will be regular readers who do not, or
    rarely, write to the group.

    As it stands, the section purports to be a list of JavaScript books.
    There must be thousands of them. I guess I've seen at least a dozen.
    Something expressing "recommended" is necessary.

    The present FAQ links imply that Crockford has printed EXACTLY the
    same errors as Flanagan !!

    The book titles need quotes, or italics, or ...

    I would also recommend the Pocket Flanagan, since its size makes it
    much more useable at the PC. Full Flanagan needs an armchair. The
    O'reilly site implies that it is still available.

    I would hope that Regular Expression Pocket Reference (O'Reilly) would
    be recommendable, too - but I've not AFAIK seen it. See <http://
    oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514273/index.html>.



    In Section 3.2, 262 & 16262 should have their formal titles.

    It is worth noting that Bart's process appears to be getting its daily
    posts from the current FAQ version, rather than from January's.

    --
    (c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Posting with Google.
    Mail: J.R.""""""""@physics.org or (better) via Home Page at
    Web: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/>
    FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ....|
     
    Dr J R Stockton, Oct 8, 2008
    #11
  12. In comp.lang.javascript message <gcguan$n7n$1$>
    , Wed, 8 Oct 2008 01:19:34, Richard Cornford
    <> posted:

    >> FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?


    >The original wording for the entry: "The only book currently endorsed
    >by c.l.j. regulars is: JavaScript: The Definitive Guide ... ", was an
    >acurte statemnt, even if it was a bit ambiguous about exactly how few
    >regulars were willing to endorese the book in practice.


    It was certainly not accurate, because I am a regular and I endorse
    Flanagan's "JavaScript Pocket Reference", which is a book.

    --
    (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
    Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
    No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
     
    Dr J R Stockton, Oct 8, 2008
    #12
  13. In comp.lang.javascript message <gcif2e$ji9$00$-online.com>,
    Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:11:25, Stevo <> posted:
    >Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >> No matter the (im)possibility of pronunciation, I would regard CLJ an
    >> acronym (and use the `acronym' element) -- if the newsgroup name contained
    >> those uppercase characters. Since it does not, it should be written in
    >> lowercase and marked up an acronym nonetheless.
    >> YMMV, see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym>.
    >> PointedEars

    >
    >It's not an acronym though.
    >
    >Acronym = "word" made up of the initials components in a phrase or name
    >and can be used in a sentence in the same way as any regular word and
    >pronounced as a word. Examples: RAM, ROM, LASER, RADAR, BOGOF.



    CLJ can readily be pronounced; it is like KLUDGE but with a shortened
    vowel; therefore, Merriam-Webster could have "Pronunciation: \'klj\" if
    it had the word. I'd not be at all surprised if it were a word in some
    [South-]Eastern European language; they can pronounce the strangest
    strings there. Google Translate has no Welsh!

    Using c.l.j breaks the sentence too much.
    Using clj makes one try to understand it as a normal word.
    The string CLJ has the required properties.

    --
    (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
    PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
    Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
     
    Dr J R Stockton, Oct 8, 2008
    #13
  14. FAQ server

    dhtml Guest

    Dr J R Stockton wrote:
    > On Oct 8, 2:50 am, dhtml <> wrote:
    >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >>> FAQ server wrote:

    >
    >>>> Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:
    >>>> JavaScript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
    >>>> ISBN:0-596-10199-6
    >>> s/Most/Some/

    >
    > "Most" is sufficient, fortunately, to exclude Thomas Lahn.
    >
    >> I removed the text altogether. The book is still listed.

    >
    > The text should be restored. It was fairly recently agreed to
    > represent the general view of the newsgroup, arrant pedants
    > dissenting. Alternatively, use "The book most believed to be best by
    > CLJ regulars is :" which does not require a majority. Of course, "CLJ
    > regulars" is wrong; there will be regular readers who do not, or
    > rarely, write to the group.
    >


    Even the more vociferous of those who do write will never completely agree.

    > As it stands, the section purports to be a list of JavaScript books.
    > There must be thousands of them. I guess I've seen at least a dozen.
    > Something expressing "recommended" is necessary.
    >


    A heading qualifying the entire section might be appropriate:

    Although there are many books on javascript, most of them contain an
    inordinate amount of errors, misconceptions, and promote bad practices
    through examples and explanations.

    The following books have been recommended knowledgeable regulars of
    CLJ:

    * book 1
    * ...

    Thoughts?

    > The present FAQ links imply that Crockford has printed EXACTLY the
    > same errors as Flanagan !!
    >


    Fixed that - thanks!

    > The book titles need quotes, or italics, or ...
    >


    Yes they do.

    > I would also recommend the Pocket Flanagan, since its size makes it
    > much more useable at the PC. Full Flanagan needs an armchair. The
    > O'reilly site implies that it is still available.
    >
    > I would hope that Regular Expression Pocket Reference (O'Reilly) would
    > be recommendable, too - but I've not AFAIK seen it. See <http://
    > oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514273/index.html>.
    >
    >


    I've not read this book.

    >
    > In Section 3.2, 262 & 16262 should have their formal titles.
    >
    > It is worth noting that Bart's process appears to be getting its daily
    > posts from the current FAQ version, rather than from January's.
    >


    There's an XML file that the data comes from. I updated that. I updated
    three processing files. Two of these are for news postings, the other is
    for generating the index.html page for the FAQ.

    (Without getting into server details)


    Garrett
     
    dhtml, Oct 8, 2008
    #14
  15. On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 18:50:41, in comp.lang.javascript, dhtml wrote:

    <snip>
    >I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.


    You need to add a quote from the Preface :
    "This is not a book for beginners."

    You could also usefully add that the book is an example of how to
    convert javascript into a different language. (A worse language in my
    opinion, but some people enjoy doing that sort of thing.)


    >I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping by a nearby
    >book store.


    "casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to the FAQ.

    John
    --
    John Harris
     
    John G Harris, Oct 8, 2008
    #15
  16. FAQ server

    dhtml Guest

    John G Harris wrote:
    > On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 18:50:41, in comp.lang.javascript, dhtml wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >> I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.

    >
    > You need to add a quote from the Preface :
    > "This is not a book for beginners."
    >
    > You could also usefully add that the book is an example of how to
    > convert javascript into a different language. (A worse language in my
    > opinion, but some people enjoy doing that sort of thing.)
    >
    >
    >> I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping by a nearby
    >> book store.

    >
    > "casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to the FAQ.
    >


    Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which is very short.

    Did you think it should be removed?

    Reviews were more positive than negative:
    -1 Aaron Gray, who wrote: "Pro JavaScript Design Patterns seems better".
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/e78d210b7103797d?dmode=source

    +3 (Peter Michaux, Gregor Kofler and " ")
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp...gst&q=peter javascript books#283b45c783973cd9

    I have not looked into Pro JavaScript Design Patterns. I am somewhat
    familiar with the author's blog. I can't say I agree with a lot of what
    he writes, the top "most popular tips":
    http://www.dustindiaz.com/javascript-no-no/
    (* don't use getElementById, * use the addEvent function, * toggling:-

    function toggle() {
    if (document.getElementById('example').style == 'none') {
    ..........................................style.display == "none";

    that a reader pointed out incredulously.

    Again, I haven't read his book, only quickly checked his blog. He seems
    really arrogant towards very reasonable and polite criticism: "Your
    comments (as one might call nitpicking) are completely irrelevant" -
    what is up with that?

    Garrett

    > John
     
    dhtml, Oct 8, 2008
    #16
  17. On Oct 8, 5:00 pm, dhtml wrote:
    > Richard Cornford wrote:
    >> On Oct 8, 6:33 am, dhtml wrote:

    <snip>
    >>> CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation.

    >
    >> In what possible sense? If "CLJ" is intended as a label for
    >> the comp.lang.javascirpt Usenet newsgroup "use" anything?
    >> If you mean contributors to the group use CLJ to refer to
    >> the group then that is only a tiny (if vociferous) minority
    >> and my judgment would be that historically "c.l.j" has been
    >> the most commonly employed shorthand when referring to the
    >> group (with "c.l.js" coming second).

    >
    > I used "CLJ"


    So not "CLJ uses"?

    > so that it would stand out as initials, or an "intialism".
    >
    >>> if written as "clj", it isn't correctly abbreviated as
    >>> other things typically are (FAQ, XML, LSD, WTF, et c)
    >>> and it doesn't stand out as much.

    >
    >> So don't do that.

    >
    > Don't use "clj"?


    Yes, don't to that.

    > Which form do this groups regulars prefer?


    I prefer the traditional c.l.j, it is clear enough in context and
    nobody has proposed anything better.

    >>> And FAQ is all lowercase words, too.

    >
    >> That, very self-evidently, is not true.

    >
    > When used as a title (and it usually is) FAQ would be
    > "Frequently Asked Questions." Otherwise, it can be
    > correctly written as "frequently asked questions."


    But you cannot "correctly" write Comp.Lang.Javascript and refer to
    this group.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Oct 9, 2008
    #17
  18. On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
    > John G Harris wrote:
    >> dhtml wrote:

    ><snip>
    >>> I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.


    Without even asking?

    <snip>
    >>> I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping

    >> by a nearby book store.

    >
    >> "casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to
    >> the FAQ.


    Absolutely.

    > Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which
    > is very short.
    >
    > Did you think it should be removed?


    It should never have been added in the first place without some
    discussion before hand.

    > Reviews were more positive than negative:

    <snip>

    Reviews are irrelevant to the question of whether some book is
    suitable for inclusion. Some consideration should be given to the
    context in which it is presented; as a proposed learning aid for
    novices. Crockfords book, whatever else it may be, is not that.

    > I have not looked into Pro JavaScript Design Patterns.

    <snip>

    Until someone worth listening to proposes its inclusion in the FAQ
    "Pro JavaScript Design Patterns" is an irrelevance.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Oct 9, 2008
    #18
  19. FAQ server

    dhtml Guest

    Richard Cornford wrote:
    > On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
    >> John G Harris wrote:
    >>> dhtml wrote:

    >> <snip>
    >>>> I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.

    >
    > Without even asking?
    >
    > <snip>
    >>>> I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping
    >>> by a nearby book store.
    >>> "casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to
    >>> the FAQ.

    >
    > Absolutely.
    >
    >> Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which
    >> is very short.
    >>
    >> Did you think it should be removed?

    >
    > It should never have been added in the first place without some
    > discussion before hand.
    >
    >> Reviews were more positive than negative:

    > <snip>
    >
    > Reviews are irrelevant to the question of whether some book is
    > suitable for inclusion. Some consideration should be given to the
    > context in which it is presented; as a proposed learning aid for
    > novices. Crockfords book, whatever else it may be, is not that.
    >


    Peter Michaux:

    | On Aug 18, 5:11=A0am, wrote:
    | > I have Flanagan, Resig and Crockford. At present I'm using Crockford
    | > almost exclusively. Should Crockford replace Flanagan in the
    | > JavaScript FAQ "What's the best book?"?
    |
    | I don't think so but it is good enough that it could be added.
    | Crockford's book has some good ideas but Flanagan's book covers the
    | whole language, browser scripting and the DOM.
    | var contentstr="";
    |
    | Peter

    I also felt it was worth including. Given the dearth of decent books on
    the subject, it seemed to be a valuable recommendation. Someone looking
    for a book and, not finding one, might decide to buy something else.

    Having said that, I will remove the entry for "JavaScript: The Good
    Parts." Until I get a stronger consensus, it will not be included.

    Garrett

    >
    > Richard.
     
    dhtml, Oct 9, 2008
    #19
  20. FAQ server

    dhtml Guest

    dhtml wrote:
    > Richard Cornford wrote:
    >> On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
    >>> John G Harris wrote:
    >>>> dhtml wrote:



    >
    > Peter Michaux:
    >
    > | On Aug 18, 5:11=A0am, wrote:
    > | > I have Flanagan, Resig and Crockford. At present I'm using Crockford
    > | > almost exclusively. Should Crockford replace Flanagan in the
    > | > JavaScript FAQ "What's the best book?"?
    > |
    > | I don't think so but it is good enough that it could be added.
    > | Crockford's book has some good ideas but Flanagan's book covers the
    > | whole language, browser scripting and the DOM.
    > | var contentstr="";
    > |
    > | Peter
    >


    Correction:
    Peter did not write:
    var contentstr="";

    (copy-paste error).

    Garrett

    > Garrett
    >
    >>
    >> Richard.
     
    dhtml, Oct 9, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. FAQ server
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    87
    FAQ server
    Feb 11, 2008
  2. FAQ server
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    89
    FAQ server
    Apr 14, 2008
  3. FAQ server
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    113
    Dr J R Stockton
    Jun 14, 2008
  4. FAQ server
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    87
    FAQ server
    Aug 11, 2008
  5. FAQ server
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    89
    FAQ server
    Oct 27, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page