Prev: How to copy multi object array contents into single object arrays?
Next: Does Array.apply work as expected?
From: kangax on 16 Jan 2010 02:26
On 1/13/10 11:49 AM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>
>>> I haven't read Zakas' book. Juriy reviewed it.
>>>
>>> http://perfectionkills.com/professional-javascript-review/
>>
>> He's nice about it, but clearly it is another pathetic compendium of
>> misinformation about browser scripting.
>
> Actually, he writes: "The book is a solid foundation for anyone serious
> about Javascript."
>

But that's a bit taking it out of context. What follows the sentence you
quoted is:

"Even though not perfect, it is probably one of the best ones on the
market at the moment; The quality of so many other books is simply
horrendous."

It's the same situation as with Flanagan book. Yes, there are mistakes
here and there, and terminology is sometimes off, but the next book on a
shelf doesn't even come close. That's why there's a review -- to unveil
any bad parts.

And of course the score is given to book as a whole. One bad chapter on
browser sniffing doesn't give it a low score in my book (no pun intended).

I recently glanced through Stoyan's "Object-Oriented Javascript"
(<http://perfectionkills.com/understanding-delete/>). It seems to have
even more mistakes (I expand on one of them in a post), and is often
oversimplified to the point of being technically incorrect. But from
beginner point of view, it's very pleasant to read and easy to follow along.

--
kangax
From: Garrett Smith on 16 Jan 2010 02:51
Jonathan Fine wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Jonathan Fine wrote:
>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>> On Jan 13, 11:49 am, Jonathan Fine <J.F...(a)open.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>>>> I haven't read Zakas' book. Juriy reviewed it.
>>>>>>> http://perfectionkills.com/professional-javascript-review/
>>>>>> He's nice about it, but clearly it is another pathetic compendium of
>>>>>> misinformation about browser scripting.
>>>>> Actually, he writes: "The book is a solid foundation for anyone
>>>>> serious
>>>>>
>>>>> about Javascript."
>>>>>
>>>> Like I said, he was being (too) nice about it. Read further and it
>>>> becomes clear that it is not a solid foundation at all. The review is
>>>> a bit of a contradiction in that regard.
>>> The reviewer gives it a mark of 7/10. You seem to be giving it a mark
>>> of 0/10.
>>
>> And I insist that that score does not match the review. Perhaps he was
>> being too kind or in a particularly giving mood. I don't know.
>
> I think the score does match the review.
>

I don't. The review starts off with:
"The book is a solid foundation for anyone serious about Javascript."

Seeing Juriy's "7/10" ranking, it sounds like it is going to be a
serious book for learning javascript.

Next the review shows a chapter-by-chapter overview. There is some good
stuff in Chapter 1, ok, nothing new, prototype inheritance we've seen
these examples before.

The parts of the book review that cover the chapters that are related to
scripting HTML documents demonstrate serious maladvice for solving
cross-browser problems. The book is full of such examples (yes I have a
copy).

So, in my opinion, the conclusion in the beginning is unsupported by the
review.

The book contains some useful information on javascript. It also
contains things that are not useful or practical, completely false
statements about ECMAScript. The worst of it is the thinking that goes
into Nicholas' solutions for browser scripting.

The frequency and severity of such mistakes, on a fundamental level, is
profoundly harmful; not a the basis for building solid foundation at all.

Telling Nicholas he did a good job doesn't do anybody any good; not in
the long run.
--
Garrett
comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Garrett Smith on 16 Jan 2010 03:04
kangax wrote:
> On 1/13/10 11:49 AM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>>
>>>> I haven't read Zakas' book. Juriy reviewed it.
>>>>
>>>> http://perfectionkills.com/professional-javascript-review/
>>>
>>> He's nice about it, but clearly it is another pathetic compendium of
>>> misinformation about browser scripting.
>>
>> Actually, he writes: "The book is a solid foundation for anyone serious
>> about Javascript."
>>
>
> But that's a bit taking it out of context. What follows the sentence you
> quoted is:
>
> "Even though not perfect, it is probably one of the best ones on the
> market at the moment; The quality of so many other books is simply
> horrendous."
>
> It's the same situation as with Flanagan book. Yes, there are mistakes
> here and there, and terminology is sometimes off, but the next book on a
> shelf doesn't even come close. That's why there's a review -- to unveil
> any bad parts.
>
> And of course the score is given to book as a whole. One bad chapter on
> browser sniffing doesn't give it a low score in my book (no pun intended).
>
There's an *entire chapter* on browser detection.

Then there are chapters 10 and 11, where in chapter 11 begins with:-

| Internet Explorer does not support any of DOM Level 2 or 3. Other
| browsers have varying level of support. This chapter covers only the
| parts of the DOM that have been implemented by browsers, parts that
| have yet to be implemented by a browser are not mentioned.


Plus there's the stuff in Chapter 3. Take a look at the explanation of
the Additive Operator.

There's chapter 5, the entire chapter devoted to "Reference Types".
Which is completely the wrong terminology for what is described, and
even that is wrong (e.g. "The Array Type").

What is the point in writing a book if it is full of misinformation?

This book is better than what? Shelley Powers?

Time to get a better measuring stick. This book is even worse than
Crockford's.
--
Garrett
comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Dmitry A. Soshnikov on 16 Jan 2010 08:36
On Jan 16, 10:26 am, kangax <kan...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> I recently glanced through Stoyan's "Object-Oriented Javascript"
> (<http://perfectionkills.com/understanding-delete/>). It seems to have
> even more mistakes

Yep, this book contains much inaccurate info. What's the most funny -
for the book with this title, there're many mistakes in chapters about
objects and prototypes.

P.S.: I'm wondering, how some/any author makes decision to write the
book? If I sometime is going to write the book it will be carefully,
thoroughly and in coordination with colleagues.

/ds
From: kangax on 18 Jan 2010 12:36
On 1/16/10 3:04 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> kangax wrote:
[...]
>> And of course the score is given to book as a whole. One bad chapter
>> on browser sniffing doesn't give it a low score in my book (no pun
>> intended).
>>
> There's an *entire chapter* on browser detection.
>
> Then there are chapters 10 and 11, where in chapter 11 begins with:-
>
> | Internet Explorer does not support any of DOM Level 2 or 3. Other
> | browsers have varying level of support. This chapter covers only the
> | parts of the DOM that have been implemented by browsers, parts that
> | have yet to be implemented by a browser are not mentioned.
>
>
> Plus there's the stuff in Chapter 3. Take a look at the explanation of
> the Additive Operator.

The book is in the office. I'll look at those chapters when I get there.

>
> There's chapter 5, the entire chapter devoted to "Reference Types".
> Which is completely the wrong terminology for what is described, and
> even that is wrong (e.g. "The Array Type").

That's the common problem with Javascript books and terminology.
Crockford calls function declarataions as *function statements*, which
is especially confusing, given that function statements are a syntax
extension in Spidermonkey (and some older versions of JavascriptCore).

IIRC, Flanagan names Variable object as something else.

>
> What is the point in writing a book if it is full of misinformation?

What is the point of writing a software if it is full of bugs? You do
your best at first, then you fix whatever you (or others) find. Or
should we just stop writing it if there will be bugs anyway? ;)

>
> This book is better than what? Shelley Powers?

Probably. I haven't looked at it.

>
> Time to get a better measuring stick. This book is even worse than
> Crockford's.

How would you rate it?

--
kangax
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: How to copy multi object array contents into single object arrays?
Next: Does Array.apply work as expected?