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

[FAQ server]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

 

[Richard Cornford]

<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.

 

[dhtml]

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

 

[dhtml]

(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

 

[Stevo]

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>

 

[Richard Cornford]

(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.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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

 

[Stevo]

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.

 

[dhtml]

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

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

"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.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>
, Wed, 8 Oct 2008 01:19:34, Richard Cornford

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.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

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.

 

[dhtml]

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


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

 

[John G Harris]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 18:50:41, in comp.lang.javascript, dhtml wrote:

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

 

[dhtml]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 18:50:41, in comp.lang.javascript, dhtml wrote:



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.)



"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 " (e-mail address removed)")
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

 

[Richard Cornford]

I used "CLJ"

So not "CLJ uses"?

so that it would stand out as initials, or an "intialism".



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.

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]

Without even asking?

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.

 

[dhtml]

Without even asking?



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

<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, (e-mail address removed) 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

 

[dhtml]

Peter Michaux:

| On Aug 18, 5:11=A0am, (e-mail address removed) 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