You must log in or register to comment.
It sounds like a lie to me. Everyone knows there are no good parts of JavaScript.
Doug? That you?
It has some good parts, such as the ability to use for loops, and the fact you can kind of avoid using it as much thanks to it’s webassembly support
The problem is everyone disagrees on what part of C++ is good… Some like C+classes. Some like intense meta programming and some like functional programming and all are valid C++ that people advocate for.
The only thing you need to know is goto statements
Switch up the paradigm… in case you forgot to break out it
deleted by creator
that’s still too thick a book for the good parts of javascript
This is for any subject.
There’s a LOT of things that you don’t need to know. Take for example, cooking. To get good, you don’t need to know how fancy tricks. You just need to know the basics very well.
But after being experienced, it’s valuable to know the other 95%. Those weird edge cases.
There’s a difference: in this case it’s not about omitting fancy tricks you don’t need to know until you become an expert; it’s about omitting ill-considered features that should never have existed to begin with (or, at best, features that made sense at some point in the past but don’t anymore) and that nobody should ever use again no matter how expert they get.
The majority of dumb stuff in Javascript is that it has some counterintuitive way of doing something that it shouldn’t do at all, so only teaching the good parts works. So teaching just the good parts is pretty reasonable.
deleted by creator
