On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:55 , Claus Reinke wrote: > Both the committee and JS coders could profit from examples.
Amen to that. JavaScript seems worse than any other language when it comes to finding correct information on the web. For example, I trust StackOverflow for many topics, but for JavaScript, it’s often shockingly wrong. Half-truths are even worse than information that is completely wrong. However, there are so many styles in JavaScript that I don’t think there is a way of creating a corpus that everyone agrees on. The best you can do as a newbie is hitch your wagon to someone that you trust and follow his/her style. There are a few books that allow you to do that (JavaScript the good parts, Eloquent JS, etc.). I really liked “Effective Java”, a similar book would make sense for JavaScript (in many ways “the good parts” already is). Some of Brendan’s tweets, some of Allen’s or David’s posts, and Mark’s recent puzzle would all qualify as material for such a book. Apart from that, I thought that it might make sense to found some kind of “network of trust” of people who write introductory articles. It would be a brand that tells people that the information they see is correct. For example, when I see something by, say, Addy Osmany, Angus Croll, or Nicholas Zakas I know that there usually won’t be any errors. It might make sense for someone to curate the considerable introductory material that is out there. That could be complemented by a peer review process. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
