2 ms·
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 re
by 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 agoI 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.