Douglas Crockford. Javascript has a good parts

2. Forthcoming
00:08 - History of Javascript
14:45 - Objects
22:13 - Numbers
31:25 - Booleans and strings
37:26 - Arrays
42:21 - Dates, regex and types
52:42 - Syntax
58:09 - Statements
3. Function the ultimate
63:44 - Functions
71:22 - Function best practices
82:37 - Closure
89:12 - Closure examples
102:58 - Pseudo-classical inheritance
112:59 - Module pattern
120:58 - Pseudo-classical versus functional inheritance
4. The metamorphosis of Ajax
127:33 - The history of HTML
136:42 - How Javascript saved HTML
146:59 - The browser
151:38 - The script tag
159:28 - Document tree structure
165:05 - Retrieving nodes
174:35 - Events
181:16 - DOM performance
186:01 - Division of labor
5. ES5: the new parts
192:17 - A better Javascript
197:03 - New syntax
202:53 - New methods
213:07 - Meta-object API
220:46 - Strict mode
cl.ly/2K1S0Y3r040z

[@alexnezhynsky9707]

My gosh, I wonder why this doesn't have more views. Very, very good stuff

[@kostadinnm]

When is this talk recorded and what's in the archive link?!

[@gloubiboulgazeblob]

There's something weird : I use VS Code and made a similar module BUT, the last line doesn't end the same way : instead of having " } ( ) ) " I have " } ) ( ) " and it also works, "private " variables stays private.... If I write like in the video (1:54:05), VS Code transforms it into " } ) ( ) " when I save... Is this normal ? Is this another syntax for a module ???

[@handlebest]

Un BelExité :-D thought the same...

[@smiley_1000]

Yes, it's indeed the same and it's not too difficult to see such. The case he presented is basically var f = (function(){}()), which is the function being created and invoked inside of the paranthesis. Yours is basically var f = (function(){})(), which is the function being created inside the paranthesis and invoked outside of the paranthesis. In the end, there's really no difference. You could even leave out the paranthesis entirely and simply write var f = function(){}()

[@MarcosSandrini]

You shouldn't use this type of structure anymore. We have let and const now, which have block scope and don't require IIFEs like this.

[@AndrewTSq]

@@MarcosSandrini I think those "private" variables, aswell as closures does not work with the garbage collector in JS.

[@danh5637]

Completely missed out Microsoft’s ActiveX which was an attempt to create a proprietary browser language

[@fennecbesixdouze1794]

@3:10:00 "There was no modeling of the DOM, but the DOM must have still existed" Oh my god. Dude. Does he know what "DOM" stands for?

[@yank3970]

thanks for sharing deliciouspops

[@amirsamad4103]

Can I get the ppt of this talk ??

[@adamduncan9269]

No.

[@ivanc.6064]

unknown truths about JavaScript 1. The reason JavaScript was created in 10 days was because it was released as a product when it was still in prototype stage. 2. JavaScripts is called JavaScript because when it's founders wanted support from the founder of Java they had to agree to pretend it was a subet of Java.

[@sandeshpoudel7506]

2:09:16 i am watching this on lynda.com and this student's voice really irritating to me :D

[@alecule]

to me too :)

[@rentsy3444]

3:31:50 "You proposed that?" "Yes, I proposed that." "Cool." - stoner in the audience. Seriously what is this audience.

[@MarcosSandrini]

Seriously, yeah. This was supposed to be an advanced JS presentation, for experienced programmers of other languages and/or people that know JS already. One guy there didn't know what was heap and stack, and (maybe the same) didn't even seem to know what was an element id.