I am really enjoying this thread about js books. I found Oreilly's Javascript Patterns to be quite useful, though not as much so as this list. Has anyone else read Javascript Patterns and would you mind sharing your opinions about it?
D On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Garrett Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/16/11, SteveYoungGoogle <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jan 16, 4:15 am, Garrett Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Specs, implementations, implementation docs (MDC, MSDN), and >>> programming books are too. But not javascript books; I don't know of >>> any that are good enough to recommend. And so I continue to recommend >>> against reading books on javascript. >> >> That's a bit over the top isn't it, banning books is usually though of >> as a bad thing Ok you're not saying ban books but recommending against >> reading them is almost the same thing. My personal opinion, for what >> its worth, is that there are some JavaScript books worth reading if >> you don't take every word as gospel. I personally have found David >> Flanagan's "JavaScript The Definitive Guide" and Douglas Crockford's >> "JavaScript: The Good Parts" > > And I recommend against reading the good parts for reasons given in > threads on c.l.js. The definitive guide had some good parts in it but > had a number of mistakes and seemed strangely organized. Online > resources have several advantages over books. > > Interactive discussions have an even greater advantage in that anybody > can point out mistakes about anything. I've written a couple of wrong > things already on this group. Specifically, I recall being corrected > by kangax, Dalton, and Balazs (dunno how to put the accent on the > "a"). GOod thing I didn't publish those in a book! >> >>> A question isn't necessarily an attack, nor is it necessarily an >>> admission of ignorance. >> >> I'm sorry, but I really don't see where this is coming from. I can't >> remember saying or implying that a question might be an attack or an >> admission of ignorance >> > > It is a conceptual derivation from your observation of newbies getting > "roasted". It's not right to read too much into questions. > >> >> Ditto. I am wondering why you think you have to explain something so >> obvious to me. >> > I think I agree with you and elaborating on my own views. Just my .02. > -- > Garrett > > -- > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
