FAQ Topic - What books cover javascript? (2008-06-13)

F

FAQ server

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books cover javascript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 considered a must 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.
 
S

slebetman

Not disputing the above fact, but I am wondering how that consensus was
reached.

Or was this FAQ entry written by one D. Flanagan Esq.? ;o)

That's the general consensus of comp.lang.javascript regulars. It is
"best" not really in the sense that it is easy to understand or
clearly illustrates what javascript is or any of the other regular
things people judge "best" by (although, I do find it clearly written)
but it is "best" by the sheer fact that it contains the least amount
of code that is either directly rejected, criticised or hotly debated
by comp.lang.javascript regulars.
To paraphrase Douglas Crockford: all javascript books are crap, the
'Rhino' book is just a lot less crappy than the rest.
 
T

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

slebetman said:
That's the general consensus of comp.lang.javascript regulars.

Most definitely it isn't. The statement in the FAQ is also fallacious:
"most" implies a majority in the whole, but you cannot find a majority there
when you cannot count the whole. It should be reworded ASAP so as not to
give exactly the false impression that you got. I have said that before.


PointedEars
 
D

Dr J R Stockton

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>, Fri, 13
Most definitely it isn't. The statement in the FAQ is also fallacious:
"most" implies a majority in the whole, but you cannot find a majority there
when you cannot count the whole.

False logic. Have you never looked into number theory? But, IIRC, you
are not well-educated.

Please remember that, whenever it comes to human-type judgement, you
should expect yourself to be in the minority.
It should be reworded ASAP so as not to
give exactly the false impression that you got. I have said that before.

Then you have no need of saying it again; it can be found by Google.
That is the attitude you commonly take yourself.

I think that the consensus was probably most recently established during
that interval when you pleased us by your absence.

If you want to be able to recommend a book that will satisfy you, you'll
need to write it yourself.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top