Skip to content
HomeVideos
AllLongsCategoriesPlaylists
BooksBlogsPodcasts
HistoryListsWatch laterLiked videosFollowing

The videos, books, blogs and podcasts Hacker News keeps recommending, all in one place.

VideosBooksBlogsPodcastsAboutPrivacySettings

Data from Hacker News, HackerTube, HackerBooks, HackerBlogs and Open Library. Credits · Not affiliated with Y Combinator.

HomeVideosBooksBlogsPodcasts
Ctrl K

    Crockford on JavaScript - Section 8: Programming Style & Your Brain

    YUI Library

    3 HN recommenders · recommended in 4 months, 2014–2015

    YouTube

    1:06:46 · 111K views · Nov 13, 2011

    Douglas Crockford's YUIConf 2011 keynote on why programming style matters, particularly in JavaScript. He draws on science about the brain and shows how tools like JSLint help.

    HN points to it as an entertaining, insightful talk about the nature of programming, with memorable lines about programmers and a refreshing slide style.

    Software Engineering & LanguagesWeb developmentSoftware practice, open source & careersPython, Ruby & scripting languages
    1. 1:03:48
      JavaScript: The Good PartsGoogle TechTalks589K views • 17 years ago
    2. 1:42:09
      Crockford on JavaScript - Volume 1: The Early YearsYUI Library252K views • 15 years ago
    3. 33:52
      Nordic.js 2014 • Douglas Crockford - The Better PartsNordic.js73K views • 12 years ago
    4. 54:27
      Douglas Crockford: Monads and Gonads (YUIConf Evening Keynote)YUI Library67K views • 13 years ago
    5. 2:16
      Why We Should Stop Using JavaScript According to Douglas Crockford (Inventor of JSON)CultRepo 737K views • 3 years ago
    6. 49:26
      Douglas Crockford: The JSON SagaYUI Library81K views • 15 years ago
    7. 52:34
      The Next Programming Language - Douglas Crockford - code::dive 2022code::dive conference55K views • 3 years ago
    8. 36:31
      Hey Underscore, You're Doing It Wrong!InfoQ141K views • 13 years ago
    9. 2:45
      Using JSLint For Evilryantravistate15K views • 15 years ago
    10. 1:00:19
      How To Design A Good API and Why it MattersGoogle TechTalks453K views • 19 years ago
    11. 49:47
      Monads and GonadsGoogle TechTalks148K views • 13 years ago
    12. 43:04
      "Stop Writing Dead Programs" by Jack Rusher (Strange Loop 2022)Strange Loop Conference468K views • 4 years ago
    13. 1:14:52
      Effective Programs - 10 Years of Clojure - Rich HickeyClojureTV176K views • 9 years ago
    14. 54:15
      Google I/O 2011: Java Puzzlers - Scraping the Bottom of the BarrelGoogle for Developers60K views • 15 years ago
    15. 35:32
      Cheng Lou - On the Spectrum of Abstraction at react-europe 2016ReactEurope63K views • 10 years ago
    16. 3:32:50
      JavaScript: Understanding the Weird Parts - The First 3.5 HoursTony Alicea4.2M views • 11 years ago
    17. 52:23
      Nicholas Zakas: Scalable JavaScript Application ArchitectureYUI Library68K views • 15 years ago
    18. 1:03:31
      Brian Goetz - Stewardship: the Sobering PartsClojureTV39K views • 11 years ago
    19. 1:07:22
      Invited Talk - Guy SteeleClojureTV39K views • 9 years ago
    20. 44:36
      Hacker Way: Rethinking Web App Development at FacebookMeta Developers900K views • 12 years ago

    6 comments from Hacker News

    1. @PerseidsMar 2014· in “PowerPointless: Digital slideshows are the scourge of higher education”

      > A straightforward lecture delivered directly from a powerpoint is not automatically a bad thing. It might not be bad in itself and if you do it right it can be as good or better than a presentation without the material that is read aloud. But at the same time you are wasting the potential of a presentation that is solely meant to help the attendee/listener along and to drive home the important points or even to just use it as a rhetoric device . As an extreme example, look at this presentation: this video [1]. Most of the time his slides do not even contain a summary of what he talks about but just the headline or the punchline. And I find his style very refreshing. If you really want to have stuff that you want your listeners to be able to work through at home, something which contains all important aspects, then just publish lecture notes online.[2] [1] He begins his talk with some more conversational stuff but later on (skip to 18:30) he also features more technical stuff, and there his presentation is more interesting for our discussion. [2] I see myself making this point the third time in the discussion of the article and I'm somewhat surprised that it's not completely obvious.

      RecommendsView on HN
    2. @myth_busterMay 2015· in “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Recurrent Neural Networks”

      Douglas Crockford touches on this aspect in this entertaining and insightful talk [0]. I'm guilty of what you state and I think a large part of "programming" is rudimentary boiler plate coding/configuration and staring into the Abyss. I think our role will be to design algorithms and come up with creative solutions/hacks (which would be difficult for a program) and designing a workflow/flow chart and feeding it into a program which spits out binaries and flag for edge cases. A whole swat industries and economies (read outsourcing) will become redundant and only outsourcing done would be to the generator. [0]: this video

      RecommendsView on HN
    3. @tejohnsoMay 2015· in “Gut Feelings: The “Second Brain” in Our Gastrointestinal Systems”

      Douglas Crockford has a great talk that touches on the head-gut connection and how it relates to programming. "We could not program without our gut. I have absolutely no evidence to justify that statement. But my gut tells me it's true, so I believe it." this video

      RecommendsView on HN
    4. @ggreerMar 2014· in “I Didn’t Want To Lean Out”

      I think the exact opposite is true: Programming is more scientific than most science. A biologist often spends months experimenting before invalidating a hypothesis. A programmer's hypotheses are proven wrong dozens of times a day. By failing so quickly and often, we build mental models of code that closely correspond to reality.[1] Also, our experimental apparati are more powerful than anything in the analog world. We have debuggers that can stop time and examine every aspect of a running process. No other field gets such tools. In fact, I'm not sure I'd feel safe if other fields had debuggers. The chemistry-equivalent of a debugger is molecular nanotech. The physics-equivalent is omnipotence. 1. A side note: I have a hunch that this perpetual feedback loop of failure messes with our heads. There's a certain je ne sais quois about many who write code. It's not just programmers who notice it. A few months ago, I overheard two finance people talking about me. One said, "Geoff's kind of a weird guy, don't you think?" To which the other replied, "You haven't met many programmers, have you?" Douglas Crockford seems to agree. From this video : I think there has to be something seriously wrong with you in order to do this work. A normal person, once they’ve looked into the abyss, will say, “I’m done. This is stupid. I’m going to do something else.” But not us, ‘cause there’s something really wrong with us.

      CitesView on HN
    5. @ggreerFeb 2014· in “500 days – the longest streak on GitHub?”

      Wow, that's impressive! My streak is a mere 416 days so far: [LINK] I think the most important thing is that you must want to do it. Without an innate desire, it would require inhuman willpower to maintain such a streak. That said, it does get easier over time. Once you get into the habit of doing at least a little work every day, the streak comes pretty naturally. I say "want" and not "like" because wanting and liking are not the same thing. I usually find myself frustrated and annoyed by code, but for some reason I keep coming back. I think most programmers are weird in that respect. As Douglas Crockford says: I think there has to be something seriously wrong with you in order to do this work. A normal person, once they’ve looked into the abyss, will say, “I’m done. This is stupid. I’m going to do something else.” But not us, ‘cause there’s something really wrong with us. [1] 1. this video

      CitesView on HN