11 HN users recommended this talk10 months2009–2020score 11.5
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
A classic recommended to people learning JavaScript, even though some find it dogmatic and dated.
Douglas Crockford's 2009 Google tech talk on the good and bad parts of JavaScript, based on his book. He argues for using a reliable subset of the language and avoiding its flawed features.
The best way I've found to learn JavaScript is through anything by Douglas Crawford. 'JavaScript the Good Parts' is especially good. [link] [this video]
Crockford's JavaScript: The Good Parts as best way to learn JavaScript
Crockford's "JavaScript: The Good Parts" is the gold standard for best practices. Pretty much anyone who works in JS will recommend it. Here's a video which is a condensed version of what's in the book: [this video]
Condensed video version of Crockford's Good Parts book on JS best practices.
I will admit to having been an anti-JavaScript elitist (without really knowing JS.) This video changed my mind: [this video] (google tech talk, "JavaScript: the good parts") Two facts mentioned in the video that I didn't previously know and make me feel better about JavaScript: 1- JavaScript is lisp in disguise 2- The name JavaScript is an inside joke referencing the language's differences from Java, not its similarities. That was enough to make me change my mind, and I'm currently enjoying learning JavaScript unashamedly. Browser differences and lack of standards are a PITA, but OTOH, they all have awesome debuggers - HTML+JavaScript may be the only UI toolkit + dev environment that comes packaged with ALL computers, and for that reason has the widest reach. There's no question that the JS world is a bit wild west compared to other languages, but there's also no question that the situation is getting better over time, and that depending on what you're coding, there are huge advantages to using it.
Changes skeptics' minds about JavaScript; shows its Lisp-like roots and naming history.
When comparing Office 2007 (and 2010) with Office 97 one can clearly see these are not "the same old apps". Especially when combined with the Office Servers. JavaScript isn't such a bad language. It's essentially Scheme in C cloths. It has first-class functions, lexical closures, prototype-inheritance and more. Just avoid the bad parts. See this Google Talk by Douglas Crockford [this video]
I didn't see any links to videos - here is one from his Google tech talk in February: [this video] . He also has a number of videos on YUI Theater ( [link] ). I also recommend checking out the javascript page on his website, plenty of javascript related material to keep you busy for hours: [link]
I found the book "JavaScript: The Good Parts" by Douglas Crockford to be very helpful in understanding the language. It's short and covers the main things you'll need to know. It's a good starting place. In fact, he gave a tech talk on the main topics of his book which you can find here: [this video]
Tech talk covering the main topics of the Good Parts book
3 awesome videos on very specific topics: Dr James Grime / Numberphile - Encryption and HUGE numbers [link] Les Hazlewood - Designing a Beautiful REST+JSON API [link] classic: Douglas Crockford - JavaScript: The Good Parts [this video]
Classic Crockford talk on JavaScript's good parts.
Classics John Resig : The Dom is a mess [link] Javascript, The Good Parts [this video] Speed up your Javascript [link] Brendan Eich : Fluent 2013: Brendan Eich, "JavaScript at 18: Legal to Gamble" [link] Paul Irish : 10 things I learned from the Jquery source [link] Less known but very interesting Building High-Performing JavaScript for Modern Engines [link]
Listed among classic JavaScript talks worth watching.
A good place to start is MDN (Mozilla Developer Network): [link] MDN Javascript resources: [link] Before starting the tutorials, take some time to learn what's available in the Firefox developer tools. You won't need most of them at first, but knowing what's available will help as you gain experience. The two developer tools you'll probably use most when leaning are the Scratchpad ( [link] ) and Console ( [link] ) [link] & [link] will also be very useful while learning JS I haven't taken any but Udacity has some javascript courses ( [link] ), just tick the "Javascript" checkbox under "Technology" in the left menu Some additional resources: [link] [link] [link] [link] [link] [link] Dated but still worth watching: [this video] [link] edit: added addl. resources
Dated but still worthwhile JavaScript talk for learners.
Unfortunately I don't know about the list you have, but if you are interested in one good way to approach JS basics (not suggesting you don't know the basics -- am saying I found the following resource useful for the basics, which help with building more advanced apps): JavaScript: the good parts talk is a useful resource, IMHO. [this video]
Surprised that no one has mentioned Douglas Crockford. I would recommend his book JavaScript: The Good Parts [link] And his Google Talk, [this video] This is for plain JS.
Crockford's Google talk as a companion to his book.
That's not quite the same video. The one I linked to is from a few weeks ago, when he gave a talk at Google. ps. the youtube video works for me: [this video] pps. someone changed my crazy title for this post, this one looks much better and shorter. thanks :)
Most of the controversy stems from the fact that Doug Crockford, widely regarded as the javascript expert, has been aggressively saying "Use semicolons at the end of every statement or you will be miserable" for years, particularly in his influential book "Javascript - the Good Parts." You can see a presentation where he reiterates this point, among others, here: [this video] This blogger has a pretty compelling argument against this view.
Crockford reiterating that semicolons should be used
Surprisingly, its semantics and "features" are often bizarre and sweat-inducing when compared to other languages. (Surprising for such a widely-used language). [this video]
Crockford's talk on JavaScript's quirks versus its good parts.
Using both 'with' and 'eval' on the same line, nice ;) Douglas Crockford said in his excellent talk 'JavaScript: The Good Parts' that he highly recommends js -developers to avoid 'with', as it doesn't work correctly and for 'eval' he has to say 'If you are finding yourself using eval, you really are thinking about things the wrong way'. Source, starts where he is speaking about with and eval: [this video] Are these statements still true ?
Crockford advises avoiding 'with' and 'eval' in JavaScript.
Most critics of JavaScript don't know the good parts[1]. Sure, JavaScript has problems, but convention and static analysis fixes a lot of it. In addition, you can use something like TypeScript if you don't prefer dynamic typing. And it must be said that JavaScript does some things better than C++/C#/Java, e.g. functions. These languages are only now starting to catch up. 1. [this video]
Cited for the idea that JavaScript's critics overlook its good parts.
1. [this video] around 11:30. This is common knowledge, we should not have to repeat this every time we talk about this topic. 5. Where in npm (I've no clue what that is) can I find: 1. a calendar widget to put on my page? 2. an email, password, confirm password form to put on my page? You're not getting his point.
Points to a specific timestamp as common knowledge.
Having taught myself javascript in the mid-late 1990s and brought down a few servers by simple mistakes (Not always my own) I swore myself off the language and haven't looked back. Now I am looking to jump back in to do some app development and js seems the easiest way currently. I have looked at [this video] JavaScript the good parts 2009. There seems to be much better handle on JS so I also would be interested in "Best Practice" for modern JavaScript development.
Commenter looked at the talk when returning to JavaScript.
Reminds me of JavaScript: The Good Parts by Crockford: [this video] Strip away an older language's bad features. You end up with a sub-language with the advantage of portability and better maintainability. The problem can be deciding (and agreeing on) which language features are good and which are bad.
Analogy: strip bad features to get a better sub-language.
TGP is mostly dogma. The title should make that very clear, but unfortunately, as usual, Crockford is short sighted so the title of his book is misleading, implying you might learn something about the language by reading it. A much more appropriate title would've been "JavaScript: Crockford's Best Practices for Experienced JavaScripters", or "What's Wrong With JavaScript According to Crockford." Then it's pretty clear what the book is doing, and doesn't trick readers into thinking it's an introductory or learning book. A few of Crockford's opinions are fairly widely accepted as good advice, but much of it is controversial at best, and in practice incorrect or misguided. If you are considering buying it, just watch the talk instead: [this video] . As for the article: it's mostly sound advice. I will reiterate reading the source to underscore and backbone. I started recommending this lately to people after they get comfortable with the language. Many popular patterns and techniques are used in these code bases and they're very approachable from a reading perspective. I read both a few months ago to get up to speed on a new project and I found it quite enjoyable compared to reading the likes of jQuery or Angular.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
20 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Read more
Read more
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more