5 ms·

For anyone reading this. I strongly recommend to find a better resource than w3school, suggested by Google. The link is even broken, but this is a tiny detail.

For anyone reading this. I strongly recommend to find a better resource than w3school, suggested by Google. The link is even broken, but this is a tiny detail. W3School have bad reputation [1] and is considered bad. [1] http://www.w3fools.com/ http://www.w3fools.com/

philh 11y ago
That site doesn't say what's wrong with W3Schools, and it does say "when you're ready to level up, move on" which suggests that it's a reasonable resource for beginners to use.
- drinchev 11y ago
  For me at least. It's simply incomplete list of popular keywords with some explaination. I can never use it as a full reference. There are [1] many [2] posts [3] suggesting what is bad inside. 1: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/280478/why-not-w3schools-com http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/280478/why-not-w3sch... 2: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/87678/discouraging-w3schools-as-a-resource http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/87678/discouraging-w... 3: http://www.codecademy.com/forum_questions/4fd1d78b7e79680003012b95 http://www.codecademy.com/forum_questions/4fd1d78b7e79680003...
  - edgarvaldes 11y ago
    I'm really curious. What is bad with W3Schools? From those 3 links you posted, the only useful criticism says "they used to be notorious for serving outdated, or outright bad information." I don't see any example.
afarrell 11y ago
For example: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Learn/HTML https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Learn/HTML But really, if you want to learn html+CSS, you need to spend a bunch of time just making layouts if you want to get a mental model into your head. It is just too finicky to reason about otherwise
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  I prefer W3Schools over MDN since W3Schools gets right to the point. MDN would rather have you read three paragraphs on the history of the feature you're trying to use, but I usually don't need a full history on my reference cards.
  - m000z0rz 11y ago
    I think you nailed it here. I started learning SQL years ago from W3Schools, and it was great because it got right to the point. I can't imagine trying to get a handle on something completely new by starting with full reference material. Seems that people hate W3Schools for not being something it isn't supposed be?
  - lloeki 11y ago
    MDN contains both guides[1] and reference documentation[0] (which I happen to have read some minutes ago). While I have seen the occasional digression on a particular history point that explains some particular design choice, I found references to be often concise, complete, to the point, and correct (even across browsers, providing details if need be). BTW w3schools apparently contains squat about MutationObserver. [0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/MutationObserver https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/MutationObserv... [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide
arikrak 11y ago
Except even the w3fools recognizes that w3schools has improved...
weka 11y ago
Along with that... going to https of w3schools merits you with: Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.w3schools.com (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID ... Scary for someone who's never seen it. Bad form from Google -- really.
gedrap 11y ago
W3F is brought up quite often, and W3S receives quite a lot of hate, criticism (not always constructive). But I still use W3S when it's the first result in google search and I am ok with it. It might not be the best learning resource but it's pretty great if you forgot some CSS property, or how some JS method is called. So W3S is fairly good as a cheat sheet.

philh 11y ago

That site doesn't say what's wrong with W3Schools, and it does say "when you're ready to level up, move on" which suggests that it's a reasonable resource for beginners to use.

drinchev 11y ago
For me at least. It's simply incomplete list of popular keywords with some explaination. I can never use it as a full reference. There are [1] many [2] posts [3] suggesting what is bad inside. 1: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/280478/why-not-w3schools-com http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/280478/why-not-w3sch... 2: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/87678/discouraging-w3schools-as-a-resource http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/87678/discouraging-w... 3: http://www.codecademy.com/forum_questions/4fd1d78b7e79680003012b95 http://www.codecademy.com/forum_questions/4fd1d78b7e79680003...
- edgarvaldes 11y ago
  I'm really curious. What is bad with W3Schools? From those 3 links you posted, the only useful criticism says "they used to be notorious for serving outdated, or outright bad information." I don't see any example.

afarrell 11y ago

For example: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Learn/HTML https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Learn/HTML But really, if you want to learn html+CSS, you need to spend a bunch of time just making layouts if you want to get a mental model into your head. It is just too finicky to reason about otherwise

WorldWideWayne 11y ago
I prefer W3Schools over MDN since W3Schools gets right to the point. MDN would rather have you read three paragraphs on the history of the feature you're trying to use, but I usually don't need a full history on my reference cards.
- m000z0rz 11y ago
  I think you nailed it here. I started learning SQL years ago from W3Schools, and it was great because it got right to the point. I can't imagine trying to get a handle on something completely new by starting with full reference material. Seems that people hate W3Schools for not being something it isn't supposed be?
- lloeki 11y ago
  MDN contains both guides[1] and reference documentation[0] (which I happen to have read some minutes ago). While I have seen the occasional digression on a particular history point that explains some particular design choice, I found references to be often concise, complete, to the point, and correct (even across browsers, providing details if need be). BTW w3schools apparently contains squat about MutationObserver. [0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/MutationObserver https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/MutationObserv... [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide

arikrak 11y ago

Except even the w3fools recognizes that w3schools has improved...

weka 11y ago

Along with that... going to https of w3schools merits you with: Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.w3schools.com (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID ... Scary for someone who's never seen it. Bad form from Google -- really.

gedrap 11y ago

W3F is brought up quite often, and W3S receives quite a lot of hate, criticism (not always constructive). But I still use W3S when it's the first result in google search and I am ok with it. It might not be the best learning resource but it's pretty great if you forgot some CSS property, or how some JS method is called. So W3S is fairly good as a cheat sheet.