Comments on: Book review: JavaScript: The Good Parts http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/ Web development and Internet trends Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:11:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Robert Nyman http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-308180 Robert Nyman Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:15 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-308180 Richard, Since it was Douglas I learned it from Douglas in person, when he explained the inner workings and thoughts behind it. He was promoting it and thought that most people should start using it. I'm not really claiming that he invented it, or have no input from others with working with it, but rather just that it was him I learned it from. Richard,

Since it was Douglas I learned it from Douglas in person, when he explained the inner workings and thoughts behind it. He was promoting it and thought that most people should start using it.

I’m not really claiming that he invented it, or have no input from others with working with it, but rather just that it was him I learned it from.

]]> By: Richard Cornford http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-307932 Richard Cornford Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:12:57 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-307932 Why have you listed "The JavaScript Module Pattern" among Douglas Crockford's "most influential work" when it was not his creation and he did not participate in its development (so it is in no sense "his work")? A better candidate for inclusion in that list would be his closure-based technique for emulating private instance members on javascript objects. Particularly as that is one of the influences behind the module pattern itself (and so a very good candidate for the label "influential"). But the module pattern is two steps beyond the emulating private instance members, and Douglas Crockford did not take those steps. Why have you listed “The JavaScript Module Pattern” among Douglas Crockford’s “most influential work” when it was not his creation and he did not participate in its development (so it is in no sense “his work”)? A better candidate for inclusion in that list would be his closure-based technique for emulating private instance members on javascript objects. Particularly as that is one of the influences behind the module pattern itself (and so a very good candidate for the label “influential”). But the module pattern is two steps beyond the emulating private instance members, and Douglas Crockford did not take those steps.

]]> By: Robert Nyman http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-296112 Robert Nyman Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:27:50 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-296112 Remy, Good that I got you back on track then! :-) Jonathan, Ha ha! Yep! :-) Andrea, Well, there are some things that can be discussed, and absolutely, it's based on his conclusions. But I'd say about this book at least, is that he doesn't bring Yahoo or YUI forward in any way, and it is indeed written in an very general fashion. Henrik, Glad that you've been inspired by Douglas! First and foremost, I find it most important for everyone in the development team to agree how they should write good, and, naturally, feel good about it. Personally, I like the module pattern because it makes for a clear separation in the code about what's private and what's public. When developing a web site shared with a lot of other web developers, bringing in code from an external source you can't control or offer your code as a public API, I think it's a good approach to avoid that key aspects in your objects aren't overwritten. PS. I really like the idea of <a href="http://stix.to/" rel="nofollow">stix.to</a> DS. Remy,

Good that I got you back on track then! :-)

Jonathan,

Ha ha! Yep! :-)

Andrea,

Well, there are some things that can be discussed, and absolutely, it’s based on his conclusions. But I’d say about this book at least, is that he doesn’t bring Yahoo or YUI forward in any way, and it is indeed written in an very general fashion.

Henrik,

Glad that you’ve been inspired by Douglas!

First and foremost, I find it most important for everyone in the development team to agree how they should write good, and, naturally, feel good about it. Personally, I like the module pattern because it makes for a clear separation in the code about what’s private and what’s public.

When developing a web site shared with a lot of other web developers, bringing in code from an external source you can’t control or offer your code as a public API, I think it’s a good approach to avoid that key aspects in your objects aren’t overwritten.

PS. I really like the idea of stix.to DS.

]]> By: Henrik Hjelte http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-295733 Henrik Hjelte Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:53:22 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-295733 Crockford was the one that opened my eyes for Javascript, and it is now my favourite language beside Common Lisp. So, <a href="http://javascript.crockford.com/little.html" rel="nofollow">the little Javascripter</a> is my favourit Crockford writings. But the module pattern? What does that say about your personality: marking private methods with underscore in my perfect code is not good enough, I must prevent other coders from ever ever being able to touch my private parts. I must remove the theoretical possibility of ever touching them, for the benefit of inferior coders that don't understand the concept of private. Not even when the nuclear power plant is about to melt down should you do a quick fix with my perfect private code. It feels more like C++ or ADA than a good coding practice for a modern dynamical language. Crockford was the one that opened my eyes for Javascript, and it is now my favourite language beside Common Lisp. So, the little Javascripter is my favourit Crockford writings.

But the module pattern? What does that say about your personality: marking private methods with underscore in my perfect code is not good enough, I must prevent other coders from ever ever being able to touch my private parts. I must remove the theoretical possibility of ever touching them, for the benefit of inferior coders that don’t understand the concept of private. Not even when the nuclear power plant is about to melt down should you do a quick fix with my perfect private code. It feels more like C++ or ADA than a good coding practice for a modern dynamical language.

]]> By: Andrea Giammarchi http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-294188 Andrea Giammarchi Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:36:38 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-294188 JSlint is not perfect, and there are a lot of scripts that fail in JSlint, but are written truly correctly. As I think (and said I don't know how many times) JSlint is a "<em>developer mood</em>", but not the indisputable correct way to write JavaScript code. However, big Douglas is a great JS developer, and part of a great JavaScript team, but sometime their blog, as probably this book (reading your comment), are too much self-concerned, while Yahoo library is not "<em>the perfect one</em>", and sometime it is not better than others (performances, elegance, features). My cent, for a book that I've not read, yet :) JSlint is not perfect, and there are a lot of scripts that fail in JSlint, but are written truly correctly.

As I think (and said I don’t know how many times) JSlint is a “developer mood“, but not the indisputable correct way to write JavaScript code.

However, big Douglas is a great JS developer, and part of a great JavaScript team, but sometime their blog, as probably this book (reading your comment), are too much self-concerned, while Yahoo library is not “the perfect one“, and sometime it is not better than others (performances, elegance, features).

My cent, for a book that I’ve not read, yet :)

]]> By: Jonathan Rascher http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-294104 Jonathan Rascher Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:42:03 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-294104 "Lost" references in the code samples? I totally need to read this book. :) “Lost” references in the code samples? I totally need to read this book. :)

]]> By: Remy Sharp http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-294090 Remy Sharp Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:22:51 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/06/04/book-review-javascript-the-good-parts/#comment-294090 I bought this on pre-order and received it a couple of weeks ago. I've not read it - but I did suspect it was going to be mostly things I already knew. I think it was more to hammer home some of Crockford's approaches. Cheers for the review, it's encouraged me to get back to the book! I bought this on pre-order and received it a couple of weeks ago. I’ve not read it - but I did suspect it was going to be mostly things I already knew.
I think it was more to hammer home some of Crockford’s approaches. Cheers for the review, it’s encouraged me to get back to the book!

]]>