7 ms·

For someone with no JS experience who wants to learn, is this framework a good place to start? (I don't mean learning JS/TS syntax, more the general paradigm f

For someone with no JS experience who wants to learn, is this framework a good place to start? (I don't mean learning JS/TS syntax, more the general paradigm for user-facing code which does something meaningful besides printing "hello world")

qhungg289 4y ago
I would say you better start with using JS to manually manipulate the DOM, then start with a framework later.
- earthboundkid 4y ago
  I agree that you should start with vanilla JS, but Alpine is a good follow up because it just adds conventions around what you'd be doing in vanilla JS anyway.
code_runner 4y ago
Every framework will teach you a different way of looking at things… can’t go wrong picking one and going really deep, then exploring some others. I wouldn’t recommend one specifically, but definitely start with one and stick with it for a bit
- vagrantJin 4y ago
  > but definitely start with one and stick with it for a bit Devs are paid quite a bit of money to play russian roulette with their tool choices. Frameworks are an abstraction and not really key to understanding anything. And devs need to understand, at least conceptually what the framework is doing (or attempting to do) without too much magical BS. Ideally that starts with working with the dom and seeing first-hand the pains and joys of adding and removing elements, functions, sync and async behaviours, data handling, objects etc. Then only will frameworks click and make sense, and so choose the right tool for the right job.
  - code_runner 4y ago
    I think there is definitely value in both approaches and depending on your preference one may be more fun than the other. My point is not to get caught up in the framework of the day.
  - Moissanite 4y ago
    > devs need to understand, at least conceptually what the framework is doing (or attempting to do) without too much magical BS This strongly aligns with how I like to learn, and is one of the reasons (besides lack of need) why I haven't touched JS thus far; everything seems to focus on the revolving door of frameworks, but it isn't clear as an outsider if any of them are "purer" than the others. The reason for asking about this one in particular is that at a glance, it appears minimal and clean - but I suppose that doesn't necessarily correspond to it being an idiomatic example of simple JS done well.
gregoriol 4y ago
It's a wrong direction to start with: better learn separated behaviors (js vs css vs html) instead of mixing them together in a single "code". You'll also have better tooling to help you.
junon 4y ago
No, not at all. Learn vanilla JS and manipulate the DOM directly. This allows you to understand most other frameworks later on.
FlyingSnake 4y ago
MDN docs are a gold standard for frontend development. I recommend starting with them. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/JavaScript https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/JavaScript
rglover 4y ago
Check out Joystick [1]. It's designed to be a logical next step from learning the fundamentals of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. No surprises in terms of syntax or tooling (if it's in the specs/docs for those languages, it will work in Joystick). It's also full-stack, meaning you can start out building simple web pages with components and upgrade to a full-blown app as you learn more. If you have any questions, feel free to get in touch: ryan.glover@cheatcode.co. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick#writing-a-component https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick#writing-a-component
capitanazo77 4y ago
Yes definitely. It helps you mutate the dom easily and gives you reactivity. I’ve used it fo years. It never breaks and I don’t need to recompile never
jccalhoun 4y ago
I"m not a programmer so I was learning js from basically nothing. As others have said, I have found it best to avoid frameworks if possible. One of the biggest reasons for me is a lot of the examples and things on places like stackoverflow is out of date so I would find myself learning a framework to do one little thing and then a few days later find out there was a new pure js way to do thing or that the way I figured it out was depreciated or something. SO try to stay pure at the start.

qhungg289 4y ago

I would say you better start with using JS to manually manipulate the DOM, then start with a framework later.

earthboundkid 4y ago
I agree that you should start with vanilla JS, but Alpine is a good follow up because it just adds conventions around what you'd be doing in vanilla JS anyway.

code_runner 4y ago

Every framework will teach you a different way of looking at things… can’t go wrong picking one and going really deep, then exploring some others. I wouldn’t recommend one specifically, but definitely start with one and stick with it for a bit

vagrantJin 4y ago
> but definitely start with one and stick with it for a bit Devs are paid quite a bit of money to play russian roulette with their tool choices. Frameworks are an abstraction and not really key to understanding anything. And devs need to understand, at least conceptually what the framework is doing (or attempting to do) without too much magical BS. Ideally that starts with working with the dom and seeing first-hand the pains and joys of adding and removing elements, functions, sync and async behaviours, data handling, objects etc. Then only will frameworks click and make sense, and so choose the right tool for the right job.
- code_runner 4y ago
  I think there is definitely value in both approaches and depending on your preference one may be more fun than the other. My point is not to get caught up in the framework of the day.
- Moissanite 4y ago
  > devs need to understand, at least conceptually what the framework is doing (or attempting to do) without too much magical BS This strongly aligns with how I like to learn, and is one of the reasons (besides lack of need) why I haven't touched JS thus far; everything seems to focus on the revolving door of frameworks, but it isn't clear as an outsider if any of them are "purer" than the others. The reason for asking about this one in particular is that at a glance, it appears minimal and clean - but I suppose that doesn't necessarily correspond to it being an idiomatic example of simple JS done well.

gregoriol 4y ago

It's a wrong direction to start with: better learn separated behaviors (js vs css vs html) instead of mixing them together in a single "code". You'll also have better tooling to help you.

junon 4y ago

No, not at all. Learn vanilla JS and manipulate the DOM directly. This allows you to understand most other frameworks later on.

FlyingSnake 4y ago

MDN docs are a gold standard for frontend development. I recommend starting with them. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/JavaScript https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/JavaScript

rglover 4y ago

Check out Joystick [1]. It's designed to be a logical next step from learning the fundamentals of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. No surprises in terms of syntax or tooling (if it's in the specs/docs for those languages, it will work in Joystick). It's also full-stack, meaning you can start out building simple web pages with components and upgrade to a full-blown app as you learn more. If you have any questions, feel free to get in touch: ryan.glover@cheatcode.co. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick#writing-a-component https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick#writing-a-component

capitanazo77 4y ago

Yes definitely. It helps you mutate the dom easily and gives you reactivity. I’ve used it fo years. It never breaks and I don’t need to recompile never

jccalhoun 4y ago

I"m not a programmer so I was learning js from basically nothing. As others have said, I have found it best to avoid frameworks if possible. One of the biggest reasons for me is a lot of the examples and things on places like stackoverflow is out of date so I would find myself learning a framework to do one little thing and then a few days later find out there was a new pure js way to do thing or that the way I figured it out was depreciated or something. SO try to stay pure at the start.