4 ms·
Clicked through to https://exploringjs.com/deep-js/ch_type-coercion.html https://exploringjs.com/deep-js/ch_type-coercion.html and I have to say that's already
by TheRealPomax 5y ago
Clicked through to https://exploringjs.com/deep-js/ch_type-coercion.html https://exploringjs.com/deep-js/ch_type-coercion.html and I have to say that's already a bit questionable. The idea is there, but the writing around it is shaky (if you want to explain coercion, showing JS code without coercion without explaining that's what you're doing is not the best way to explain things to folks looking for answers).
Same for https://exploringjs.com/deep-js/ch_copying-objects-and-arrays.html#shallow-copying-vs.-deep-copying https://exploringjs.com/deep-js/ch_copying-objects-and-array..., the idea is there, but the text isn't great (is it only for objects and arrays? if I'm new to JS but someone taught me about Set and Map, can I assume those always deep copy?).
It's a great start, but it can definitely do with a few QA (rather than editorial) passes.
- rauschma 5y ago[I’m the author of “Deep JavaScript”.] Don’t forget that this book is for people who already know JavaScript well. It doesn’t try to explain the basics. This book does, though: https://exploringjs.com/impatient-js/ https://exploringjs.com/impatient-js/
- TheRealPomax 5y agoSure, but as an expert, explanations that holds up for everyone are always preferred no matter what level of book I'm reading, compared to an explanation that makes sense "if you already how it works". In both cases linked, the text feels incomplete or even just "wrong, were it not for the fact that I know what you actually meant".