For all those jQuery fanboys
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Garrett Smith on 20 Mar 2010 14:23 Peter Michaux wrote: > On Mar 19, 10:32 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> BTW, typeof YUI != 'awesome', so though clearly a language expert, Douglas Crockford is a good speaker. Some of the things in his book are clearly wrong. The lint tool has way too much subjectivity baked in, reporting errors for perfectly valid EcmaScript programs, and still calls FunctionDeclaration a function statement. > I don't think Crockford was or is as involved with YUI! as you think. > From what I understand his role was as a resource to the YUI! team. > > Crockford's legacy is that he used good taste to choose good ideas > from how Scheme is used (lexical closures for message passing OOP and > s-expressions for data transport in the form of JSON), ideas discussed > on comp.lang.javascript, some of his own ideas about how to fit those > ideas together, and spread those ideas. He is a teacher and as a > teacher he has improved the overall quality of JavaScript programming > on the web. > In his presentations, Crockford has explained some closure patterns. I have seen first hand really bad usage of the patterns that made the code worse than it would hvae been otherwise, and the developers directly attributed the usage to Crockford advice. So the patterns themselves are not bad or good; they're patterns. I guess it is easier to show the mechanics of how a closure pattern works than is to show what not to do with that pattern. > And he killed ES4 which seems to have been the right choice. I do not know if the factual part of that statement is correct. I know that Crockford opposed ES4, but I do not know if he actually killed it. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 20 Mar 2010 15:25 Garrett Smith wrote: > Peter Michaux wrote: >> And [Douglas Crockford] killed ES4 which seems to have been the right >> choice. > > I do not know if the factual part of that statement is correct. > > I know that Crockford opposed ES4, but I do not know if he actually > killed it. I sure don't hope so. The development of ES4 fell into the time when Netscape was taken over by AOL/TW, which afterwards closed down the Netscape browser division (only to rebuild it partially later), firing e.g. Waldemar "Captain Abstraction" Horwat who maintained the Netscape proposal for ES4 and JavaScript 2.0 until 2003 in the process. And I think it is a pity that this effort was abandoned/could not be revived in 2008 in favor of what we have now, a Specification which is incompatible on several of its features that were introduced earlier, so that ES3-based and ES5-based scripts cannot coexist (check Annex E of ES5) without further ado. ES4 could have been an interesting step on the desktop, providing the software developer with a way to choose between the prototype-based and the class-based, and the loosely-typed and the strictly-typed approach in *one* language. It really is a pity that it only made it to JScript .NET and ActionScript 2.0. 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> (404-comp.)
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 20 Mar 2010 21:25
Peter Michaux wrote: > And he killed ES4 which seems to have been the right choice. Garrett Smith wrote: > I do not know if the factual part of that statement is correct. > I know that Crockford opposed ES4, but I do not know if he actually > killed it. No, ES4 primarily killed itself according to BE. After some major components of ES4 were deemed unfit for the browser, the rest kind of fell away as being syntactic sugar for simpler constructs: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/003400.html |