Crockford on JavaScript - Volume 1: The Early Years

I'm in the same position as you. I realised I was still writing spaghetti code that relied heavily on DOM manipulation with Jquery. I am currently learning how the language has evolved and the following has been helpful — 1. [link] 2. ▶ this video (videos, watch all of them) 3. [link] 4. [link] Hope this helps :)

in “Ask HN: Resources for catching up on modern JavaScript for Python/C++ Programmer” · View on HN

I didn't watch the whole serie yet, but the first two are pretty solid and still fun. The first part doest not cover JS at all, but is rather a brief history of computing. Crockford on JavaScript - Volume 1: The Early Years ▶ this video

in “Ask HN: What is your favourite tech talk?” · View on HN

Forget about Bootstrap and jQuery, learn vanilla js. Reading Eloquent JavaScript is a good starting point. Once you are done with that, build something and join #javascript @ FreenodeIRC and ask for help when you get stuck on something. The good parts is nice but keep in mind that it is very opinionated, still it is worth reading. There are some lectures by Crockford on youtube too (tl;dr) ▶ this video Also this on OOP [link] Finally you may want to familiarize with the most common JavaScript design patterns (some are not unique to js) [link]

in “Ask HN: What's the best path for learning JavaScript for web development?” · View on HN

Here's a really good introduction to inheritance: [link] -- a lot of people struggle unless they have a good understanding of how this works. Also, Douglass Crockford (the person who wrote "JavaScript: The Good Parts") has a number of videos that are very useful. Here's the first in a series of eight: ▶ this video -- and if you find that useful, you can check out the rest in the list of related videos.

in “Ask HN: Good JavaScript introductions for experienced programmers?” · View on HN

This sort of realization is the first step to realizing that you really shouldn't be writing javascript like java/C++. It makes things feel a lot nicer when you start really thinking in JS. I'd recommend checking out Crockford's "Crockford on Javascript" series for some good intro on thinking about Javascript ( ▶ this video ). Section 3 is where you really start talking about JS. For a good counter-example, check out a lot of google's JS libs (in all their giant module goodness).

in “Prototypes Are Not Classes” · View on HN

Part 1 of Douglas Crockford's On JavaScript gives a really nice history of the many programming languages leading up to JavaScript. Chapter 1: The Early Years : ▶ this video Chapter 2: And Then There Was JavaScript: [link]

in “JavaScript Isn't Scheme” · View on HN

> why should a protocl like telnet be relevant today A lot of software uses "telnet" as in TCP sockets with \r\n and ASCII encoding. That's all telnet is and that's how a lot of data is shifted around all the time. > To learn from its mistakes? Telnet wasn't a mistake. It was an obvious step from terminals via RS232 to terminals via TCP. Also, telnet is everywhere. If you went into research and someone said "just hook into the telnet stream for $SENSOR" and you said "What's telnet" that wouldn't end well. > No, that's why you take design classes that you seem to dislike. No one in their right minds would call telnet, sending text over TCP, a bad design. It's a bad design for some things, but others it's the simplest way to do things. You can do a lot with it since it is very robust. What can go wrong with a telnet stream? 1) Client/Server drops connection to you 2) ... What else? That's a tenant of fantastic design. > Leaving aside the lack of need to know those ancient things (I say this as a heavy user of vim), you seem to conflate engineering with computer science. I don't conflate it. Everyone in industry does. I'm marketing myself to industry so I will use their terminology. Their terminology associates Computer Science with "The programmer". > There's a lot of CS that doesn't have anything to do with network protocols and UNIX programs I and most places you'd go to work in industry aren't mainly concerned with those problems. Different data structures? Great yea I'd lov

in “A college student’s individual analysis of productivity of four years (2016)” · View on HN

> Yet again, they admitted an important feature was missing. Again, I am not familiar with Java 8 but I suspect their implementation is horribly wrong. Admitting something is broken does not mean it sucks. See this comment: [link] Also, please read this before you wave it off: [link] > I have. I guess I have just logged more time in Java than others. Java is probably my most used language and that's saying something as I work as a TA for a Python class, use python for most personal projects, and also use many other languages. Java consumes the most time because it has the most polished toolings and standards for developers. Now they may not always be ovserved but if you stay in your own walled garden everything is all honky-dory. You will never make these mistakes if you follow basic practices in Java's naming conventions. All lower case classpaths, all uppercase class names, lower then cammel function names, etc. You'll never be able to mistake Test() for Test.test() as they are instinctivly different names. > Please tell me how to do it properly. IE, if I have a variable of type Foo that is holding a value of type Bar, how do I invoke the function with Bar instead of Foo in the signature? void something(Foo f) { if (f instanceof Bar) { (Bar-Specific commands) } (generic commands) } Or better yet use your magic want: Abstraction . Wave it around and use your super powers to move that functionality into Foo and in anything that needs a specific handling of that function, over

in “Why Java Sucks – Jonathan Gardner” · View on HN

But programmers don't want better languages[0]. Programmers mostly just want what they already have. You can't overcome that kind of resistance just by saying "look, here's a language that's more fun and modern". Programmers say they want better languages, but good luck trying to convince them to switch to a new language just by its merit. The only tangible benefit of Swift is that it can be used instead of Objective-C for iOS -- which is important for iOS because Objective-C poses an even bigger hurdle by virtue of its unfamiliar syntax. Swift wins on iOS because it competes with a language nobody wanted to learn to begin with. Even as far as familiarity goes, the only thing Swift looks familiar to (based on first impressions) is Ruby, except it uses a more familiar C-like syntax (i.e. braces). While Ruby programmers are extremely visible (especially in startup/valley crowds) there aren't that many of them -- not to mention that some have already moved on to Rust or JS. 0: ▶ this video

in ““Swift will be open source later this year”” · View on HN

or if you prefer watching instead of reading, watch Douglas Crocford talk about JavaScript early years in this talk ▶ this video

in “Difference between JavaScript and Java?” · View on HN