FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript? (2010-03-25)

[FAQ server]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Most javascript books have been found to contain so many technical
errors that consensus recommendations have not emerged from the group.

The following books have been considered to have value by some
individuals on c.l.js. The reviews of these books are provided:

*
* _"JavaScript: The Definitive Guide,"_ 5th Edition, by David Flanagan

* Published: 2006-08
* Pages: 1018
* http://jibbering.com/faq/Errata:

http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596101992/errata/

* Discussed in:

*

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...98f77fd2a66/9252aa024e058dea#c5f145ae807c918e

*
_"JavaScript, The Good Parts,"_ 1st Edition, by Douglas Crockford

* Published: 2008-05
* Pages: 170
* http://jibbering.com/faq/Errata:

http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/errata/

* Discussed in:

*

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/d084d2109f7b4ec7#

*

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...9ab113aa05c/3987eac87ad27966#3987eac87ad27966

*

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...7835ee728de/da5ccfc65e2df64a#da5ccfc65e2df64a

*

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/3a08fb741525ab6d/

*

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...e6e63494ee2/acb733a1c35f6ce5#ee9e4ee29e658d5d

*

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...506ee48b400/e65e00f5cad07676#e65e00f5cad07676

*

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...1b22b219433/4f69a95607d0b3ae#4f69a95607d0b3ae


The complete comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at
http://jibbering.com/faq/

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

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

, Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:03, FAQ server <[email protected]> posted:

That is unimportant. Any set of recommendations must include checking
against what actually happens and against the ECMA 3 and/or 5 standards.
All books have errors, and users need to be aware of that.

A book chooser needs, far more importantly, to choose a book or books in
accordance with the existing level of general computer programming
experience (for example, those who have been programming successfully
for years only need to be shown how to write the various types of looks
- they do not need a chapter on how useful looping can be, such as those
who have no idea of programming might benefit from).

To judge from the older editions, Rhino is good on JavaScript itself;
Flamingo is briefer there, but has much reference material on what in a
Web page JavaScript can manipulate.

The answer to the question needs a total re-work, with the abilities of
the potential readership the prime consideration. Many of those who
have posted here would be better served by an "Idiot's guide" or
"Dummies" type of book.

 

[Garrett Smith]

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

That is unimportant. Any set of recommendations must include checking
against what actually happens and against the ECMA 3 and/or 5 standards.
All books have errors, and users need to be aware of that.

That statement shows that the quality of books available is judged to be
not so good by c.l.js, followed by all of two books. It provides
indication that the reader might be better off checking the online
resources.

A book chooser needs, far more importantly, to choose a book or books in
accordance with the existing level of general computer programming
experience (for example, those who have been programming successfully
for years only need to be shown how to write the various types of looks
- they do not need a chapter on how useful looping can be, such as those
who have no idea of programming might benefit from).

A good book can introduce terms that, to some readers, are unfamiliar.

The concepts of RIA development, including ECMAScript, w3c DOM (Events,
Core, HTML), MSIE DOM, HTML, CSS, are not hard.

To judge from the older editions, Rhino is good on JavaScript itself;
Flamingo is briefer there, but has much reference material on what in a
Web page JavaScript can manipulate.

The answer to the question needs a total re-work, with the abilities of
the potential readership the prime consideration. Many of those who
have posted here would be better served by an "Idiot's guide" or
"Dummies" type of book.

Absolutely not. Those books are generally awful, as is anything
promoting instant knowledge, e.g. "JavaScript in 24 hours".

 

[Asen Bozhilov]

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Absolutely not. Those books are generally awful, as is anything
promoting instant knowledge, e.g. "JavaScript in 24 hours".

It's discussed many times here. Unfortunately, at the moment i don't
know any good books about ECMA-262 implementations. Are you think
about FAQ notes to put in one book? With additions from another
articles like those of kangax and Dmitry Soshnikov and with some post
in archive of newsgroup, i think that book will be best. Of course if
they want. The money from that books, can be used for hosting, domain
and other things regarding support of the group FAQ.

I'm wondering, why the domain of FAQ is: jibbering.com ? Perhaps Jim
Ley is the creator of the FAQ? At the moment follow domain names are
available:

cl-js.org
cl-js.info
cl-js.com
jslang.info

 

[Dmitry A. Soshnikov]

[...]

It's discussed many times here. Unfortunately, at the moment i don't
know any good books about ECMA-262 implementations.

Will be soon. I got a master-plan

Dmitry.

 

[Asen Bozhilov]

Asen Bozhilov wrote:

These are available too:

comp-lang-javascript.com
comp-lang-js.com
javascript-faq.com
js-faq.com
cljs.us
jsfaq.info

Yes, if Garrett and others members of group want, we can choice good
domain name for FAQ and FAQ's articles.

 

[David Mark]

Yes, if Garrett and others members of group want, we can choice good
domain name for FAQ and FAQ's articles.

Garrett won't even edit basic documents for fear of invalidating them.
(!) I think asking him to move the whole thing to another domain is
going to be too much. Actually, let me rephrase that. He'll likely be
all for it, but won't have a clue what is really involved. Then when it
dawns on him that it will take some real work, he'll nix it.

 

[Garrett Smith]

Garrett won't even edit basic documents for fear of invalidating them.
(!)

That is a false statement.

 

[Garrett Smith]

Asen Bozhilov wrote:

[...]

Yes, if Garrett and others members of group want, we can choice good
domain name for FAQ and FAQ's articles.

What is wrong with the jibbering.com domain?

 

[David Mark]

That is a false statement.

I don't think so. Do you need a cite? Or perhaps I misunderstood your
blithering at the time. Good to clear it up either way.

 

[Asen Bozhilov]

What is wrong with the jibbering.com domain?

It's irrelevant with the name of the group. jibbering.com is
registered by Jim Ley with own purposes. Perhaps he's a creator of FAQ
and he place FAQ's material on his hosting.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:38:39, Garrett Smith

That statement shows that the quality of books available is judged to
be not so good by c.l.js, followed by all of two books. It provides
indication that the reader might be better off checking the online
resources.

*Might*. There are clearly many on-line resources which are much worse
than any reasonably-well chosen book on the subject. Careful
recommendations are needed there.

Books have other advantages - for example, they can be put down in
public places with much less risk of theft than is the case for a
portable on-line reader. There is (normally) less demand from other
family members to read one's book than there is to use the computer.

The merits and otherwise of on-line resources should be indicated
directly, not just by implication.

A good book can introduce terms that, to some readers, are unfamiliar.

Manifestly. Why say it?

The concepts of RIA development, including ECMAScript, w3c DOM (Events,
Core, HTML), MSIE DOM, HTML, CSS, are not hard.

They are not hard. But the ability to use them well does not confer the
ability to explain them well.

Absolutely not. Those books are generally awful, as is anything
promoting instant knowledge, e.g. "JavaScript in 24 hours".

If one looks at source code of Web Pages, it is clear that a significant
number of coders could benefit from such simple books, but could never
manage Flamingo or Rhino. But that is an extreme example; I cannot name
offhand any books suitable for intermediate intellects.


FAQ entries should be designed to help novices, not merely to show off
the coding abilities of their authors.