Derek, I am also reading the Javascript Patterns book. Now that I think about it I ready messages from this group as much or more than I read books. What I like is reading the book (JP) to learn theory then applying the contcepts/patterns to a project I am working on. Since I am still learning design patterns it's a great book to make sense of the patterns within the concept of a language, js, that I understand. When I run into a question about applying a pattern it's great to know that I can post and discuss with this group. I just quit my day job so, peers in the next cube will be only found in a chat window soon. I hope to become active in this group as I will likely need the feedback from the group during my new endeavor as an independent contractor.
Best Regards, -Bill Heaton @pixelhandler On Jan 16, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Derek Watson wrote: > I am really enjoying this thread about js books. I found Oreilly's > Javascript Patterns to be quite useful, though not as much so as this > list. Has anyone else read Javascript Patterns and would you mind > sharing your opinions about it? > > D > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1/16/11, SteveYoungGoogle <stephen.jo...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On Jan 16, 4:15 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> That's a bit over the top isn't it, banning books is usually though of >>> as a bad thing Ok you're not saying ban books but recommending against >>> reading them is almost the same thing. My personal opinion, for what >>> its worth, is that there are some JavaScript books worth reading if >>> you don't take every word as gospel. I personally have found David >>> Flanagan's "JavaScript The Definitive Guide" and Douglas Crockford's >>> "JavaScript: The Good Parts" >> >> And I recommend against reading the good parts for reasons given in >> threads on c.l.js. The definitive guide had some good parts in it but >> had a number of mistakes and seemed strangely organized. Online >> resources have several advantages over books. >> >> Interactive discussions have an even greater advantage in that anybody >> can point out mistakes about anything. I've written a couple of wrong >> things already on this group. Specifically, I recall being corrected >> by kangax, Dalton, and Balazs (dunno how to put the accent on the >> "a"). GOod thing I didn't publish those in a book! >>> >>>> A question isn't necessarily an attack, nor is it necessarily an >>>> admission of ignorance. >>> >>> I'm sorry, but I really don't see where this is coming from. I can't >>> remember saying or implying that a question might be an attack or an >>> admission of ignorance >>> >> >> It is a conceptual derivation from your observation of newbies getting >> "roasted". It's not right to read too much into questions. >> >>> >>> Ditto. I am wondering why you think you have to explain something so >>> obvious to me. >>> >> I think I agree with you and elaborating on my own views. Just my .02. >> -- >> 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
