Peter Michaux

It took building a lisp for me to finally understand them .. I recommend http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/scheme-from-scratch-introduction

I think C++ is the best example of where JS is heading. We have different ways of doing the same thing, and you have to know the "right" and "wrong" ways based on whatever was the latest proposal. We have fringe proposals that are just based on something cool some other language did, and they might stick or they might not. We'll soon have the really obscure constructs that nobody uses except for this guy on the 3rd floor, and he's really vocal about it so watch out. Maybe we'll even finally get macros in JavaScript [1] soon. 1: http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/macros-in-javascript-please

I'd consider adding some articles from http://rmurphey.com/ ( that's where I started reading about large javascript apps), http://peter.michaux.ca/ (very interesting), and even some of the demo apps from http://rightjs.org/, like https://github.com/MadRabbit/typing-ninja, are pretty good for learning javascript. IMHO.

Not to mention the recent AppJet stack release! ...which I guess is Rhino and Jetty. Still cool, though. I've even been messing about with some of this fellow's stuff, including a very pretty mini-web framework: http://peter.michaux.ca/ He's working on the problem that is really holding server-side JS back: no libraries.

You don't get it. See the examples I posted recently in CLJ (at the end of that jQuery thread, for example). It does anything you can imagine, including a jQuery-like interface if you really like bad interfaces. :) Or you can write your own OO interface. jQuery is _downstream_ from My Library. If you go back a couple of years in CLJ, you'll find that I'm the one who tirelessly argued with Resig and co. until they dumped UA sniffing. And yeah, they copy code and ideas from me to this day. But that is _not_ why I point out the botched implementations of those (and other) ideas. I point them out because the code is bullshit. All of that stuff about improved development time and readability and support for whatever browsers misses the mark (no pun intended) as well. * The others are not more readable * The others are not more advanced (despite my Write Once, Do Nothing strategy). * The others are not more compatible (not even close) * The others do not perform better * The others do not have better support (the authors are too confused about what they are writing or copying) The only thing the others have going for them is that they actually (disingenuously) market their projects. I don't have the time or need to do so. The library is only 330K if you select _everything_ in the builder, which is the equivalent of jQuery + 100 plug-ins. It's got easily the best Flash module, a unique audio module, "sidebar" widgets, a CSS selector query engine, animations…

Have you looked at scheme from scratch[1]? [1] http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/scheme-from-scratch-introduction

Spend some weekends reading up on feature detection[0] and documented "bugs" (read: expected behavior) on MSDN. The time I've spent on both has transformed my perspective as a developer. We really don't work hard enough because we decry the DOM and blame Microsoft for problems research can and will solve. [0]: http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/feature-detection-state-of-the-art-br…

I have high hopes for this series; I really enjoyed Peter Michaux's "Scheme from Scratch" series, from which the author says gained inspiration for his series: http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/scheme-from-scratch-introduction

Just read through this Scheme Edition: http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/scheme-from-scratch-bootstrap-v0_1-in…

Please do not detect the browser! Detect the feature! Feature detection is preferred by many to browser sniffing to support future browsers: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/not_browser_detect.html http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/feature-detection-state-of-the-art-br… https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Browser_Feature_Detection

Pardon me, but what's so advanced about these techniques? Anyone writing JavaScript for living should already know these things. You want to talk advanced? How about lazy function definition [http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/lazy-function-definition-pattern]? Or say actual advanced JavaScript? http://ejohn.org/apps/learn/

This is pure blogspam; the real link is http://peter.michaux.ca/article/9081

In another post, the author wrote more about his opinions of MVC: Introducing Maria: The Real MVC http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/introducing-maria-the-real-mvc >Why no one else chose to write an true MVC framework, I cannot figure. Many people have chosen to write true MVC frameworks, so go figure again. >There is no doubt that the early Smalltalk MVC architecture inspired today’s MV* frameworks for JavaScript. Of course, so why did you just figure otherwise? >My take on it was straight forward. And wrong. >The MVC architecture has withstood a 30 year test. And failed. >It has passed that brutal test. How do you reconcile that with your claim that "nobody chose to write an true MVC framework"? If it passed, then why isn't everyone using it? If people are only using "impure" MVC frameworks, then why did all those people choose not to implement "pure" MVC frameworks? >It is still used for application programming. So is goto and waterfall design methodology. That's not a good argument. >It is very useful for browser programming. As Alan Kay says about MVC programming, "Things seem to hang on in computing just because they work a little bit." >Why not take this time-tested architecture and make a JavaScript framework true to the MVC that is implemented in Squeak Smalltalk and written about in Design Patterns? My experience with Maria has shown it was a good choice. No reason why not to try again. Maybe you will be the first person in 40 years to get it right by…