Working more efficiently in Javascript

This may be a useful tool to better understand & find Javascript
concepts:
http://www.yoyobrain.com/subjects/show/240

Add flashcards to your studies, click on cram with the learning
wizard.

We're building this site to improve learning, so feedback on
improvements and how to get this into the hands of developers is much
appreciated. Feel free to email me too- elizabeth (AT) yoyobrain (DOT) com...

Best,

Elizabeth

On Jun 9, 11:11 am, Elizabeth Barnwell <elizabethbarnw... (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

This may be a useful tool to better understand & find Javascript
concepts:http://www.yoyobrain.com/subjects/show/240

Add flashcards to your studies, click on cram with the learning
wizard.

We're building this site to improve learning, so feedback on
improvements and how to get this into the hands of developers is much
appreciated. Feel free to email me too- elizab... (AT) yoyobrain (DOT) com...

Regarding http://www.yoyobrain.com/cardboxes/preview/502

The flash cards show questions but no question marks. There isn't even
any terminal sentence punctuation

-----

How do you embed JavaScript code in a web page?

<script type="text/javascript">

-----

How do you refer to a JavaScript in a separate .js file?

see above

-----

How can you get a browser to continue parsing...?

Questions about "defer" should probably not be included as this is a
relatively useless attribute.

-----

What is the trick to dynamically writing scripts to a page with
document.write

document.write('<script type="text/javascript">/* code */<\/script>');

-----

How do you hide a script from old browsers that don't know javascript?

This question is very out dated. No one should do this anymore.

-----

How do you turn on conditional JavaScript compilation?

These tactics should not be encouraged for use by anyone at the level
of learning these flash cards. In fact, conditional comments probably
shouldn't be used at all.

-----

What is the same origin policy for browser JavaScript code?

The answer is very misleading. Some would say wrong.

-----

There is plenty of incorrect information about JavaScript available on
the web. We don't need more. If you want to have a credible site, you
will need a knowledgeable JavaScript programmer to write your answers.

Peter

On Jun 9, 7:11 pm, Elizabeth Barnwell wrote:

This may be a useful tool to better understand & find Javascript
concepts:http://www.yoyobrain.com/subjects/show/240

Add flashcards to your studies, click on cram with the learning
wizard.

We're building this site to improve learning, so feedback on
improvements and how to get this into the hands of developers
is much appreciated. ...
snip

One of your flash card questions is "What are the 3 primitive data
types?". The answer is moot because javascript/ECMAScript has 5
primitive data types. There is so much wrong with your card's contents
that correcting them would effectively involve writing the lot from
scratch. I would have to second Peter's opinion; "If you want to have
a credible site, you will need a knowledgeable JavaScript programmer
to write your answers".

However, is the 'flash card' idea useful/effective from the outset?
How many of the cards mention "concepts" (or come close to usefully
explaining them)? And how much understanding can follow form just the
accumulation of a set of discrete facts (assuming they were factual to
start with)?

On Jun 10, 8:18 am, Henry <rcornf... (AT) raindrop (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Jun 9, 7:11 pm, Elizabeth Barnwell wrote:> This may be a useful tool to better understand & find Javascript
concepts:http://www.yoyobrain.com/subjects/show/240

Add flashcards to your studies, click on cram with the learning
wizard.

We're building this site to improve learning, so feedback on
improvements and how to get this into the hands of developers
is much appreciated. ...

snip

One of your flash card questions is "What are the 3 primitive data
types?". The answer is moot because javascript/ECMAScript has 5
primitive data types. There is so much wrong with your card's contents
that correcting them would effectively involve writing the lot from
scratch. I would have to second Peter's opinion; "If you want to have
a credible site, you will need a knowledgeable JavaScript programmer
to write your answers".

However, is the 'flash card' idea useful/effective from the outset?
How many of the cards mention "concepts" (or come close to usefully
explaining them)? And how much understanding can follow form just the
accumulation of a set of discrete facts (assuming they were factual to
start with)?

Hi Henry and Peter,

Thanks for your feedback.

The idea for yoyobrain.com came when the creator, Will Bunker
(match.com), wanted to switch from .net to web 2.0... he used
flashcards to help him learn and work more efficiently so he didn't
have to look things up all the time. These are his flashcards, but
anyone could get on the site and make their own to make learning
materials that suit one's particular learning style - with the added
benefit of building knowledge with others by sharing information.
We're adding the option to adopt others' learning materials to your
own so you may edit them as you please...

Thanks for your suggestions on improving the cards- I'll definitely
pass them along. Let me know of anything else you think of!

Best,

Elizabeth

On Jun 10, 10:46 am, Elizabeth Barnwell <elizabethbarnw... (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

On Jun 10, 8:18 am, Henry <rcornf... (AT) raindrop (DOT) co.uk> wrote:



On Jun 9, 7:11 pm, Elizabeth Barnwell wrote:> This may be a useful tool to better understand & find Javascript
concepts:http://www.yoyobrain.com/subjects/show/240

Add flashcards to your studies, click on cram with the learning
wizard.

We're building this site to improve learning, so feedback on
improvements and how to get this into the hands of developers
is much appreciated. ...

snip

One of your flash card questions is "What are the 3 primitive data
types?". The answer is moot because javascript/ECMAScript has 5
primitive data types. There is so much wrong with your card's contents
that correcting them would effectively involve writing the lot from
scratch. I would have to second Peter's opinion; "If you want to have
a credible site, you will need a knowledgeable JavaScript programmer
to write your answers".

However, is the 'flash card' idea useful/effective from the outset?
How many of the cards mention "concepts" (or come close to usefully
explaining them)? And how much understanding can follow form just the
accumulation of a set of discrete facts (assuming they were factual to
start with)?

Hi Henry and Peter,

Thanks for your feedback.

The idea for yoyobrain.com came when the creator, Will Bunker
(match.com), wanted to switch from .net to web 2.0... he used
flashcards to help him learn and work more efficiently so he didn't
have to look things up all the time. These are his flashcards, but
anyone could get on the site and make their own to make learning
materials that suit one's particular learning style - with the added
benefit of building knowledge with others by sharing information.
We're adding the option to adopt others' learning materials to your
own so you may edit them as you please...

Thanks for your suggestions on improving the cards- I'll definitely
pass them along. Let me know of anything else you think of!

Best,

Elizabeth

In regard to needing more experienced JavaScript programmers, you hit
the nail on the head. YoYoBrain.com could maybe become a tool they
would want to use to make their own learning materials to be shared
with others- making an organized resource of information. If you took
all of the valuable information you give to others in your posts on
this discussion board, made it into learning material on yoyobrain-
this could be cool, and efficient- I think that's the idea we're going
for... let me know your thoughts.

Thanks for your help.

Best,

Elizabeth

On Jun 10, 7:13 pm, Elizabeth Barnwell wrote:

On Jun 10, 8:18 am, Henry wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:11 pm, Elizabeth Barnwell wrote:
This may be a useful tool to better understand & find Javascript
concepts:http://www.yoyobrain.com/subjects/show/240

Add flashcards to your studies, click on cram with the learning
wizard.

We're building this site to improve learning, so feedback on
improvements and how to get this into the hands of developers
is much appreciated. ...
snip

One of your flash card questions is "What are the 3 primitive
data types?". The answer is moot because javascript/ECMAScript
has 5 primitive data types. There is so much wrong with your
card's contents that correcting them would effectively involve
writing the lot from scratch. I would have to second Peter's
opinion; "If you want to have a credible site, you will need
a knowledgeable JavaScript programmer to write your answers".

However, is the 'flash card' idea useful/effective from the
outset? How many of the cards mention "concepts" (or come
close to usefully explaining them)? And how much understanding
can follow form just the accumulation of a set of discrete
facts (assuming they were factual to start with)?
snip
In regard to needing more experienced JavaScript programmers,
you hit the nail on the head. YoYoBrain.com could maybe
become a tool they

would want to use to make their own learning materials to be
shared with others- making an organized resource of information.
If you took all of the valuable information you give to others
in your posts on this discussion board, made it into learning
material on yoyobrain- this could be cool,

Cool for whom exactly? I can certainly see how a site that wants to be
something but cannot produce the content that would make it into that
thing might like the idea of someone else (who is capable) providing
that content.

and efficient -

There we have a fundamental disagreement. This strikes me as a
fundamentally poor approach towards learning to be a "knowledgeable
JavaScript programmer". It might be a viable approach towards passing
some sort of superficial formal test on the subject but it lacks to
the depth to promote understanding (or any potential to provide that
depth).

To illustrate; one of the 'flash cards' states:-

Question: "How do you hide a script from old browsers that don't know
JavaScript"
Answer (in part): "use the <!-- comment around the actual script ..."

- which is a factual assertion (disregarding many quibbles about the
precise wording (such as what does "that don't know JavaScript"
actually mean there?)). However, it lacks that explanation(s) that
would promote understanding. The (or an) explanation being that
browsers tend to disregard the contents of elements that they do not
recognise and so will tend to treat any text content they have as
content to be displayed to the user. And browser released prior to the
introduction of SCRIPT elements could have no understanding of those
elements and so would tend to display the script source code to the
user. This meant that browsers released before (approximately) mid
1996 had a problem with SCRIPT elements and this strategy was used to
address their problems. Browsers released after the introduction of
SCRIPT elements (and particularly after their formal inclusion in HTML
standards) have no excuse for not knowing how to sensibly handle their
contents (not showing the code to the user even if the browser cannot
process that code itself).

From this explanation comes the understanding that since the odds of
any script written in 2008 encountering a browser released prior to
mid 1996 are vanishingly small this "hiding form old browsers"
incantation is now redundant.

The existence of your 'flash card' implies that this, broadly factual,
assertion has significance, while an understanding of it show that
even if it is a fact it is no longer of any significance at all.

I think that's the idea we're going
for... let me know your thoughts.

The whole approach is inappropriate for the subject.

Henry wrote:

From this explanation comes the understanding that since the odds of
any script written in 2008 encountering a browser released prior to
mid 1996 are vanishingly small this "hiding form old browsers"
incantation is now redundant.

The existence of your 'flash card' implies that this, broadly factual,
assertion has significance, while an understanding of it show that
even if it is a fact it is no longer of any significance at all.

It is still of significance in the regard that using this obsolete technique
shows a lack of understanding for the basics of Web development, one that
may cause such applications to break in more recent user agents because
their implementors deemed it appropriate to remove support for this
proprietary obsolete feature or not to include it in the first place, when
it will simply become a syntax error. I do not know of such a user agent,
but this does not exclude the possibility that such one is existing or will
exist.

I think that's the idea we're going
for... let me know your thoughts.

The whole approach is inappropriate for the subject.

Insofar, I am not sure whether to agree to that. I think that, would the
flash cards be more carefully selected, questions and answers more carefully
and more precisely worded, it could provide for a viable learning experience
for those who are unwilling or incapable to understand concepts described in
the form of Specifications, who prefer a more practical approach instead
(and getting into the internals, the why, from there instead).


PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

On Jun 12, 4:49 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de>
wrote:

Henry wrote:
From this explanation comes the understanding that since the odds of
any script written in 2008 encountering a browser released prior to
mid 1996 are vanishingly small this "hiding form old browsers"
incantation is now redundant.

The existence of your 'flash card' implies that this, broadly factual,
assertion has significance, while an understanding of it show that
even if it is a fact it is no longer of any significance at all.

It is still of significance in the regard that using this obsolete technique
shows a lack of understanding for the basics of Web development, one that
may cause such applications to break in more recent user agents because
their implementors deemed it appropriate to remove support for this
proprietary obsolete feature or not to include it in the first place, when
it will simply become a syntax error. I do not know of such a user agent,
but this does not exclude the possibility that such one is existing or will
exist.

I think that's the idea we're going
for... let me know your thoughts.

The whole approach is inappropriate for the subject.

Insofar, I am not sure whether to agree to that. I think that, would the
flash cards be more carefully selected, questions and answers more carefully
and more precisely worded, it could provide for a viable learning experience
for those who are unwilling or incapable to understand concepts described in
the form of Specifications, who prefer a more practical approach instead
(and getting into the internals, the why, from there instead).

PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for your reply. I think you understand what we're getting at...
I know our developers, and many others have found this method useful.
However, to each his own. We are working on developing ways to comment
on, rate and add edits to others' flashcards to make community-
validated content.

I'll keep you posted on updates.

Best,

Elizabeth