On 1/15/11, SteveYoungGoogle <stephen.jo...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Well done! This looks like it will be *the* resource for people > wanting to learn JavaScript. > Interactive discussion is a great way to learn. Good communication can go a long way towards facilitating clearer discussions http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html (not listed on the group homepage, tsk).
Specs, implementations, implementation docs (MDC, MSDN), and programming books are too. But not javascript books; I don't know of any that are good enough to recommend. And so I continue to recommend against reading books on javascript. > I have been a regular reader at c.l.j. for about two years now. I > stopped asking questions there over a year ago however, because of the > bad manners and rudeness of some of the regulars there and the stupid > way legitimate questions are often hijacked and the thread turned into > a discussion on the semantics of the spelling of JavaScript or a rant > against a framework/library or some other such nonsense. > Yeah, library rants and even some questionable criticisms in sloppily formatted reviews. Though OTOH, there are some good insights on library code in many threads. Pearls in the mud. I always tried my best to focus on the code itself and explain problems clearly. And I'm not ashamed of this one at all: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/a3f34bc1e74c2aad Asking questions is part of communication. http://jsmentors.com/archive/jsmentors_jsmentors.com/2010-November/000132.html A question isn't necessarily an attack, nor is it necessarily an admission of ignorance. A reply to a question may also contain questions, perhaps to gain clarity on the question being responded to. Don't assume things about a question! Posting such assumptions will often facilitate miscommunication and may in some cases may constitute personal attack, as seen recently here. If you want to know why somebody is asking a question, then ask! > Reading through some of the threads here has been a real pleasure and > I am sure that others like me, who have been disillusioned by c.l.j. > would benefit from knowing about this group. Which brings me to the > reason for this post. I found this group via a posting by Michael > Haufe on c.l.j. and this was the first time I saw any reference to > this group there. Is there a reason for this and would you or would > you not appreciate people recommending this group, for instance, to > newbies who are getting a roasting at c.l.j.? > OK, but I don't think it's right to condemn c.l.js -- that only portrays c.l.js as the place to make snarky rude comments. It also gives validity to condemnations such as John Resig's "ban" on the group. Rather than condemning, just either try and make it better or don't get involved. Easier said than done. Garrett -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
