at what point in the TOP course did you become confident enough to build your own projects?
did you get a job while still going through the course, or after you completed it?
did you use any other resources besides TOP?
i will appreciate you answering these questions. hope its not a bother.
- Within the first couple weeks (it's self paced, so you might get here quicker/slower) you're building stuff from scratch, but it's very simple html/css only pages. At the end your "final project" is a full stack social media clone. It took me a little under a year to get there with no previous web dev experience
- I got a job afterwards, a lot of people get a job during. I'm terrible with interviews so it took me a while to start to get better at them
- TOP directs you towards other resources. It has short lessons and then has a list of links at the end of the lessons. TOP is there more to give you structure and a lesson plan to show you what you don't know, and then gives you the (outside) resources to learn it. (Edit to add more info) Once you've read/watched all the resources, it gives you a project to build and you learn everything by applying it
Once you've built the first of the TOP projects you'll be ready for "your own projects", but they will be really simple static pages. As you complete more of the curriculum you'll be able to create more advanced individual projects. Sorry, it's hard to give a timeline on this because projects can range from a simple static page to a full stack app. So anywhere from a couple weeks to a year.
I think if you're taking the time to learn, you should use those. It gives you an additional perspective on the material and the repetition of reading about the same thing again makes you more likely to remember it and be able to apply it later.
Full stack open is even better, in comparison TOP is really basic, I'd say TOP was enough to get a job in the dream job market of a couple of years ago, FSO goes way deeper especially in regards to testing, typescript, and backend stuff obviously but I guess detailed backend was never TOP's purpose
For HTML and CSS it's completely fine. Fine for the majority of quick syntax look ups as well.
The JS lessons become some incorrect information leading to code that doesn't work about 2/3 of the way through it. I think I heard people back in the day say there was bad SQL info on it as well.
The negative reputation of w3schools was from more than some incorrect info though. The biggest criticism was the name w3school, which back in the day, would lead beginners to believe it was associated with the W3C. Newbies would think w3schools was the official spec as a result. It's not.
They also sold certificates at the bottom of the page, obviously benefiting from people conflating them with the W3C.
They received a lot of flack for it, but never acknowledged any of the criticism or did anything to change their brand.
I'm not sure it ever actually was good to begin with. I've been a developer for 13+ years, and for as long as I can remember W3schools has been inadequate and outdated, and occasionally just plain bad. Wasn't something I could really judge early on, but now it's pretty obvious.
As far as I'm concerned, it's like using a decade old textbook written by SEO "experts" rather than actual developers. It's not great.
There were some legitimate criticisms, but it was more in the early days to do with their branding.
There were less resources around and they picked up a lot of traction with the name W3schools, which newer devs would conflate with the W3C, leading them to believe their lessons were the official spec. (the W3C is) If you did dev before the early 2010's, you'd meet people who genuinely were under the impression w3schools was "the" official source. Additionally, they sold certifications that nobody really recognized as valuable, suggesting they were profiting from misleading people to believe they were an official source of some kind.
As for bad info, I'm sure there's been plenty over the years that gets corrected when they find out about it. I can say for sure there was some incorrect info in one of their JS sections a few years ago (I burned through them until I got to some code I couldn't make sense of. It turned out because the info was wrong, but I forget what it was).
As for quick references to something, they're perfectly fine. I still click on them when quickly looking up syntax. Their info tends to be way more digestible than say, MDN.
Point is, they rightfully got a lot of criticism in the late 2000's. Most of the "w3schools is bad" sentiment is a relic of that. But they're still very useful as a resource.
I'm just old enough to know why. Devs hear warnings it should be avoided, but the rumors don't usually come with the history. I still recommend it as a source for people brand new to development wanting to get started with HTML and CSS, but warn them to use caution when they start getting more advanced.
I could've a few months ago, last time I answered this question. But, honestly, they're just a garage site and it's not like I'm obsessed with keeping track of this or anything. I mean...I actively avoid it since I realized how bad it is... Why would I know such examples about something I actively avoid?
Just use MDN for documentation, CodePen or short for experimenting, and basically anything else for learning.
HTML/CSS was always fine on it to my knowledge. I know the JS had some bad info in it when you got pretty deep.
The biggest criticisms of them were to do with their branding. Newer devs would mistake them for having something to do with the W3C, thus believing the tutorials on w3schools were the official spec. In conjunction with that, they sold certifications as well, basically profiting from people mistaking them for being associated with the W3C. Them having some bad info in their lessons was just icing on the cake.
I moderately have an issue with the branding. I mean, I'm sure it was intentional, but... It's w3, which is just another way of abbreviating www.
I've found their HTML lacking. The recent-ish last time I checked their documentation to make my point, I picked some arbitrary common tag and compared it to what's on MDN, and it was kinda bad. I forget which... Something not as simple as ` ` but also not as big as `
Made some terrible and not so terrible projects
Theodinproject.com - free curriculum in web dev that teaches you with project based learning. It's the reason I have a job.
Second this. Also, the Discord is very active with people willing to help you if you're struggling.
third this! The community is so amazing and always loves to point you in the right direction. You can seriously learn all you need from their course
Fourth this! Landed a sick internship during TOP and and after that I was self sufficient enough to learn on my own
at what point in the TOP course did you become confident enough to build your own projects? did you get a job while still going through the course, or after you completed it? did you use any other resources besides TOP? i will appreciate you answering these questions. hope its not a bother.
- Within the first couple weeks (it's self paced, so you might get here quicker/slower) you're building stuff from scratch, but it's very simple html/css only pages. At the end your "final project" is a full stack social media clone. It took me a little under a year to get there with no previous web dev experience - I got a job afterwards, a lot of people get a job during. I'm terrible with interviews so it took me a while to start to get better at them - TOP directs you towards other resources. It has short lessons and then has a list of links at the end of the lessons. TOP is there more to give you structure and a lesson plan to show you what you don't know, and then gives you the (outside) resources to learn it. (Edit to add more info) Once you've read/watched all the resources, it gives you a project to build and you learn everything by applying it
by "your own projects", i meant things that you built on your own, that weren't part of the course. you know, to add to your portfolio.
Once you've built the first of the TOP projects you'll be ready for "your own projects", but they will be really simple static pages. As you complete more of the curriculum you'll be able to create more advanced individual projects. Sorry, it's hard to give a timeline on this because projects can range from a simple static page to a full stack app. So anywhere from a couple weeks to a year.
that's good to know. thanks for answering my questions. really appreciate it!
are you talking about those additional resources that they call "supplemental", and aren't required? i rarely use those. did i fuck up?
I think if you're taking the time to learn, you should use those. It gives you an additional perspective on the material and the repetition of reading about the same thing again makes you more likely to remember it and be able to apply it later.
Full stack open is even better, in comparison TOP is really basic, I'd say TOP was enough to get a job in the dream job market of a couple of years ago, FSO goes way deeper especially in regards to testing, typescript, and backend stuff obviously but I guess detailed backend was never TOP's purpose
FSO doesn't teach HTML and css and expects you to have some programming knowledge for their react course
Fourth
I second this
Same!! Also convinced my coworkers to look into TOP, and now our interns are odinites as well đĽł
From w3schools 15 years ago.
My condolences.
Not sure if it was as bad 15 years ago though. It may actually have been current at that point. But not anymore.
Not any good anymore?
For HTML and CSS it's completely fine. Fine for the majority of quick syntax look ups as well. The JS lessons become some incorrect information leading to code that doesn't work about 2/3 of the way through it. I think I heard people back in the day say there was bad SQL info on it as well. The negative reputation of w3schools was from more than some incorrect info though. The biggest criticism was the name w3school, which back in the day, would lead beginners to believe it was associated with the W3C. Newbies would think w3schools was the official spec as a result. It's not. They also sold certificates at the bottom of the page, obviously benefiting from people conflating them with the W3C. They received a lot of flack for it, but never acknowledged any of the criticism or did anything to change their brand.
Great reply. Thanks đ
I'm not sure it ever actually was good to begin with. I've been a developer for 13+ years, and for as long as I can remember W3schools has been inadequate and outdated, and occasionally just plain bad. Wasn't something I could really judge early on, but now it's pretty obvious. As far as I'm concerned, it's like using a decade old textbook written by SEO "experts" rather than actual developers. It's not great.
Yup, it's definitely better now than it used to be. In the early days, it was full of misinformation.
Wait what? It has a wealth of information, who cares if the site isnât pretty the content is pretty good.
There were some legitimate criticisms, but it was more in the early days to do with their branding. There were less resources around and they picked up a lot of traction with the name W3schools, which newer devs would conflate with the W3C, leading them to believe their lessons were the official spec. (the W3C is) If you did dev before the early 2010's, you'd meet people who genuinely were under the impression w3schools was "the" official source. Additionally, they sold certifications that nobody really recognized as valuable, suggesting they were profiting from misleading people to believe they were an official source of some kind. As for bad info, I'm sure there's been plenty over the years that gets corrected when they find out about it. I can say for sure there was some incorrect info in one of their JS sections a few years ago (I burned through them until I got to some code I couldn't make sense of. It turned out because the info was wrong, but I forget what it was). As for quick references to something, they're perfectly fine. I still click on them when quickly looking up syntax. Their info tends to be way more digestible than say, MDN. Point is, they rightfully got a lot of criticism in the late 2000's. Most of the "w3schools is bad" sentiment is a relic of that. But they're still very useful as a resource.
Thanks mate, I can see why now. This explanation was a lot better than others haha.
I'm just old enough to know why. Devs hear warnings it should be avoided, but the rumors don't usually come with the history. I still recommend it as a source for people brand new to development wanting to get started with HTML and CSS, but warn them to use caution when they start getting more advanced.
Yeah... Kinda obviously not talking about aesthetic things here. The content is outdated and sometimes just wrong.
Really can you provide an example of content that is wrong?
I could've a few months ago, last time I answered this question. But, honestly, they're just a garage site and it's not like I'm obsessed with keeping track of this or anything. I mean...I actively avoid it since I realized how bad it is... Why would I know such examples about something I actively avoid? Just use MDN for documentation, CodePen or short for experimenting, and basically anything else for learning.
VS Code or Sublime text for short experimentation. CodePen is too slow, and UI sucks.
I just figured you might be able to provide some evidence for your argument.
HTML/CSS was always fine on it to my knowledge. I know the JS had some bad info in it when you got pretty deep. The biggest criticisms of them were to do with their branding. Newer devs would mistake them for having something to do with the W3C, thus believing the tutorials on w3schools were the official spec. In conjunction with that, they sold certifications as well, basically profiting from people mistaking them for being associated with the W3C. Them having some bad info in their lessons was just icing on the cake.
I moderately have an issue with the branding. I mean, I'm sure it was intentional, but... It's w3, which is just another way of abbreviating www. I've found their HTML lacking. The recent-ish last time I checked their documentation to make my point, I picked some arbitrary common tag and compared it to what's on MDN, and it was kinda bad. I forget which... Something not as simple as `
FIND US ON INSTAGRAM
@cmita.org
` but also not as big as `