Scott Sauyet
1/2/2015 4:13:00 PM
Evertjan. wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>
>> But beyond that, do you have a substantive critique of the book?
>>
>> I've used it to help teach beginning JS programmers. I think it's
>> one of the better ones around. I don't remember seeing any reviews
>> of it here, but I have not been paying very much attention for the
>> last year.
>>
>> Have you read it? At least some versions of it are freely available
>> on the web.
>
> The fact that the OP as a beginner should be subjected to code that does not
> show which used functions are JS-native, and which are to be found elsewhere
> in the book, does not give me much confidence.
This book is a tutorial, not a reference. I think that makes a big
difference. A careful reader would have seen that function many times
between when it was introduced and when it was used here.
But I'm assuming that this is a no. You haven't read the book?
> It is clear the book is needlessly complex for the OP.
It is only clear to me that the OP ran into an issue and asked
for input from this group. The rest is interpretation.
> I have never heard of a JS-book that was not:
> outdated, incomplete, full of errors, error-prone, overselfconfident, etc.
There are better and worse books, though. This one, along
with David Herman's _Effective Javascript_ are my most-recommended
ones. That's why I was trying to tease out whether you had a
serious critique of it. I have of course seen flaws, but on the
whole, I find this a worthwhile book for beginning and intermediate
Javascript programmers.
> JS should better [imho, but that is always implied] be learned than taught.
> learned by specs, example, trial and error, where the 'teacher' is absent of
> does not want to express superior knowledge.
>
> If found that is true for most other subjects too, believing in a revered
> teacher usually sets you of on the wrong foot.
Do you think your preferred learning style should dictate how others
choose to learn?
>> 3. Look for earlier definitions in the book for the missing parts.
>
> One really should not have to do that, such definitions should be
> backpointed.
I agree; at least once in the current chapter it should point to the
definitions of any functions its using from previous ones. I don't
think Haverbeke does so. But I don't think it's a significant flaw.
>> Christoph M. Becker's response has already done that for the OP. Such
>> a response is more informative and IMHO better for the group than a
>> snide disparagement of the book in question.
>
> Now you are talking, rubish I mean, as
>
> 1 why should a responce be "good for the group"?
Participating in a community in a way that undermines that community
is a good definition of trolling. If that's what you prefer to do,
I guess we have little more to say to one another.
> 2 why should a responce be informative?
It doesn't have to be. It could also be humorous. But if it's
neither, then I for one am not interested in it. Maybe others are.
> 3 why should a response be be compared with an 'already' one, also given the
> nonsequential nature of the usenet server system?
The "already" explained why I didn't do so myself. It was not meant
to take you to task for not having done so.
> 4 what is wrong with a 'snide disparagement'?
It's snide. And it's a disparagement.
> All that is required according to netiquette and charter, is 'on topic',
> meaning 1 about JS in general or 2 about the NG.
I responded because I didn't know if behind the snark you had
a substantive critique of a book I admire. I would have found
that worth hearing. Otherwise I would have dismissed your post
as mere noise. I guess I should have done so.
-- Scott