3 ms·
That should be the default approach for tutorials on react, including the official web site. Webpack, babel and create-react-app should be demonstrated as a co
by sametmax 8y ago
That should be the default approach for tutorials on react, including the official web site.
Webpack, babel and create-react-app should be demonstrated as a conclusion, not as an introduction.
- k__ 8y agoYes, this was the idea. Had the impression most people who didn't want to use React hated the tooling. I was impressed that even Babel itself wouls run via script-tag :D
- syspec 8y agoThat is exactly correct, the tooling seemed like such a huge thing to sign onto just to find out if i liked a thing.
- acemarke 8y agoWhich is why the React "getting started" docs pages were just revamped to emphasis that you can absolutely use it without any tooling: https://reactjs.org/docs/getting-started.html https://reactjs.org/docs/getting-started.html
- sametmax 8y agoIt just mentions you can. The doc should do only that: without tooling. It's a react tutorial, not a webpack/babel tutorial. I'd even say you should start with a toto list exercice with only react.createElement, and only move to JSX later. Using CodePen do show you full-gear examples is dishonest IMO.
- acemarke 8y agoHonestly, there's lots of different ways you can teach and approach learning React, in the same way there's lots of ways to teach and approach programming. Is it better to teach with something resembling a "real app" setup, so the user can start doing something "meaningful" right away? Or is it better to strip away all abstractions and start from the bare bottom, so that the user understands exactly what's going on under the hood? Both are valid approaches, and a lot of times it depends on both the individual's learning style and what their background is.