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

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

FAQ server wrote:

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

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)

On Jun 13, 7:39 am, Dan Rumney <danrum... (AT) warpmail (DOT) net> wrote:

FAQ server wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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.

slebetman wrote:

On Jun 13, 7:39 am, Dan Rumney <danrum... (AT) warpmail (DOT) net> wrote:
FAQ server wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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.

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
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>

In comp.lang.javascript message <4852D1E1.10106 (AT) PointedEars (DOT) de>, Fri, 13
Jun 2008 22:00:33, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars (AT) web (DOT) de>
posted:

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.

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.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3 6.20 ; WinXP.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.