-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Node Refresh #98
Labels
Status: Discussion
This issue/PR has an ongoing discussion
Type: Enhancement
Involves a new feature or enhancement request
Comments
Some suggestions:
|
Project ideas:
|
I'm only against this because the goal here is parity and bringing things in house, rather than expansion. The rest is agreeable to me. |
thatblindgeye
added
Status: Discussion
This issue/PR has an ongoing discussion
Type: Enhancement
Involves a new feature or enhancement request
labels
Jan 28, 2022
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Discussion
This issue/PR has an ongoing discussion
Type: Enhancement
Involves a new feature or enhancement request
Tatiana Walton
Node Refresh
Summary
The NodeJS course has a majority of its content in the form of a code-along tutorial (Express Library from MDN). There are also some gaps or weaker sections (such as the authentication/authorization sections) and the REST API -> React frontend sections. This course should be refreshed to bring content in house and emphasize view engines less while adding more projects and content that rely on a REST API backend and React frontend. We should not get rid of view engines entirely because of their importance in other stacks.
Motivation
The motivation is to help bring parity between the RoR path and the NodeJS path, and help alleviate common issues seen in the help channels that are rooted in following the MDN code along for the majority of the course. The expected outcome is that learners have a stronger understanding of the MERN stack.
Suggested implementation
Drawbacks
Are there any drawbacks to this proposal? consider the following:
Alternatives
I think the content as it stands right now (not in house) is the alternative.
Additional
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: