FWIW, Danny Goodman's JavaScript Bible was the JS book that made the light go on over my head (as far as JS is concerned). I'd also maybe recommend picking up one of the jQuery books. I've not read either of the two yet, but Manning publishes one and IMO their stuff is top notch.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Karl Rudd <karl.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps it might be beneficial for you to get a few good books on > JavaScript and learn more that way. It may be an easier route for you > than having to ask the list some of the "simpler" questions. > > Unfortunately I can't actually personally recommend you any books, > when I started JavaScript they were few and far between. Perhaps a few > others might be able to chime in with some suggestions. Perhaps an OT > post asking for JavaScript book recommendations? > > I did do a quick search and found these two by "eminent" JavaScript > programmers, perhaps they might be of assistance: > > JavaScript: The Good Parts > http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Good-Parts-Douglas-Crockford/dp/0596517742 > > "Pro JavaScript Techniques" > http://jspro.org/ > > Karl Rudd > > PS It's probably a good time to stop this thread as it's well beyond > it's beginning topic. > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Rick Faircloth > <r...@whitestonemedia.com> wrote: > > > > It's JS that I know little about. My sites are CSS based in their > layouts. > > I have no problem with the CSS, it's just the syntax and some of the > > basic operation of JS that takes a while to understand. > > > > And keep in mind, that even quantum physicist had to learn about > > gravity before he could understand quantum physics. > > > > I do appreciate your help and, especially the links. > > > > Rick > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery...@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of Karl Rudd > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 12:16 AM > >> To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com > >> Subject: [jQuery] Re: In this code, what would $(this) in the success > part refer to? > >> > >> > >> Guys, it's probably a good time for a "time out". This is doing no one > >> any good, least of all those reading the list. > >> > >> I understand MorningZ and Matt Quackenbush's frustration, I often feel > >> the same way about a lot of the posts on the list, Rick's included. No > >> offence intended Rick. I can see that you're trying to do a lot and > >> are not familiar with JavaScript/CSS, that does lead to a lot of > >> questions. > >> > >> Occasionally if the question is "read the documentation" I'll provide > >> a link, but more often than not I just ignore them. It leads to a lot > >> less stress, mostly for me :). Trying to explain quantum physics to > >> someone who's just learning about gravity is usually a recipe for > >> stress for all involved. > >> > >> Karl Rudd > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Rick Faircloth > >> <r...@whitestonemedia.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > I help myself, too, but often times, answers that are offered > >> > to problems aren't correct, so you'll certainly hear "that didn't > work" > >> > if you post an incorrect answer to a question. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery...@googlegroups.com] > On Behalf Of MorningZ > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:38 PM > >> >> To: jQuery (English) > >> >> Subject: [jQuery] Re: In this code, what would $(this) in the success > part refer to? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> that's exactly the point i was reaching at > >> >> > >> >> some people, myself included, point out a syntax error in the posted > >> >> code... only to have it changed to as suggested and then a new post > of > >> >> "that didn't work!"... there's no effort shown to understanding why > $ > >> >> ("this") and $(this) are two totally different things... just that > >> >> "it didn't work" > >> >> > >> >> the whole underlying problem is a total lack of understanding of > >> >> selectors and what they are getting.... > >> >> > >> >> whatever though... i know i am not alone in opening a new topic only > >> >> to see it the same exact post from before.... it's just that i'm the > >> >> first person to speak of it.... so don't burn me at the stake for > >> >> saying what many others are thinking..... as Matt says, you have to > >> >> help yourself first.... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Jan 13, 11:33 pm, Matt Quackenbush <quackfu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, people are sick > and > >> >> > tired of helping you when you refuse to help yourself? > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Rick Faircloth wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > This is a completely different part of the problem. > >> >> > > The other parts have been solved, but I couldn't make sense > >> >> > > of the success part. > >> >> > > >> >> > > If you don't want to help, don't respond. > >> >> > > >> >> > > And if you really are concerned about the number of posts, > >> >> > > contribute to making them unnecessary by helping with the > problem. > >> >> > > >> >> > > You took up more "ink" on the page by complaining about the > >> >> > > posts than you would if you had just answered the question. > >> >> > > >> >> > > I'll just assume you don't know...so please keep the responses > >> >> > > off my thread unless you want to be helpful. > >> >> > > >> >> > > Rick > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my wife. And I wish you my kind of success.
