Learn React.js in a weekend (opens in new tab)

What stacks would you recommend for starting a React Native application of low complexity (like single man operation) and low-to-moderate complexity (like a several man seed-funded company)?

> I don't recommend learning Redux the first weekend you learn React.

Agree and so do others:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mjackson/status/74507491083006771...

Admittedly this may sound like "argument from authority", but I just mean that it's not an unpopular opinion. I've seen way too many people be too dogmatic about Redux. Core React is underrated.

Thanks for the advice.

I've been wanting to learn React for a while, but each time I start, I'm put off by the complexity it adds (compared to e.g., jQuery + vanilla JS). I soon will just jump in and learn to swim.

BTW, do folks use React for server-side apps as well? If so, is that common?

Also, I almost ROFL at the "axes might be logarithmic" in that graph's legend!

I'm putting together a React course right now and have specifically avoided Redux (& even server-side React). I don't want to get in the way of the a-ha moment when you see React components working together simply and cleanly

What would you recommend to do about the aspects React doesn't cover? (My sole use case is webapps and dynamic webpages)

I mean, React is only when you have an object and want to render an UI component, right? That's quite a small part of what even a simplest CRUD interface has to do (i.e. acquire the object from server and then try to keep it in sync with both server-maintained state and user feedback).

I get different things from videos than I do text. From a video, I get a "why" and a "how" most often, whereas from text I get a "what". Obviously text can represent why and how, but I feel there's something lost going from screencap to screencap that is perfectly captured in video about the process of getting from point A to point B. Additionally, most blog posts don't publish the mistakes (let's try this thing! crap it didn't work, here's why. This is especially true as a result of a question.) but you can very easily convey that type of information in video by just showing it not working. The pacing thing is totally a valid concern and I find myself watching youtube videos at 1.5 or 2x speed to consume the content.

I use a combination of both, and I'll scrub a video a lot to see a concept.

For me, hearing a description will often come with some emotional cues. Stuff like, "Now this is cool..." or "Oof, forgot the iterator..." help me learn where I should be paying attention.

Text often has a hard time conveying the same set of information. Sure, you can type 'watch out!' in a yellow box around some text, but my ape brain doesn't pick those up as the same as watching (or listening) to another ape brain make the mistake or exclaim in delight.

Sometimes it's seeing the workflow. Sometimes it's seeing the outcome without having to run a hello-world yourself. But I think mostly it's because videos give a much better overall topology quicker than reading. For example, I'll watch a screencast end-to-end, and then I'll begin the project and start to go through it slower, knowing which branches of the text tutorial are important because I've seen the complete picture.

Maybe the problem is that you are assuming others have no trouble. Videos tend to pack more stuff in a shorter amount of time and new concepts require extra effort. I have heard that some "learn better by video rather than text, etc..." but doubt it is true.

I always liked Railscasts and the companion/transcribed "Asciicasts".

I think the video format is a kind of forcing function in terms of the presenter really explaining things (if they aren't just reading off the screen). Which in turn made the transcript great to read.

My brain simply absorbs information at a faster rate with video/audio than reading.

Nope! Everything is free except the first link!

The argument (among others) is that if you're going to be using if/else, for loops, and all that in a templating language you might as well use a full-featured language like JavaScript... (youtube timestamp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cQ3mrcKaY&t=4m13s)

JSX is entirely optional and it is easy to use React without it. (e.g., http://ludovf.net/reactbook/blog/reactjs-without-jsx-part2.h...)

(I hope the comment doesn't indicate that you think the interesting thing about React is JSX.)

Everyone has different mechanisms for learning. As someone who learns from manuals, tutorials, and videos simultaneously, a new technology presented as a wall of text can seem impenetrable until I've watched another human make something happen.

Then, I can loop back to that text armed with a little context. Videos are often examples of how to develop with the technology outside of a bubble. (Using React? Consider setting up webpack!) That seems to be missing from manuals sometimes.

Separating html out into a separate file/template always seemed weird to me. In every JS Framework HTML and Javascript are tightly coupled. JSX is also javascript, not HTML.

Yeah, the jsx bit is weird to start with, the best bit is changing data diffs the DOM and updates it for you.

However, unless building a madly complex UI I've decided it's best avoided; mostly because now that I can build super complex UIs I probably will rather than simplify things that can work in a progressively enhanced way.

haha that's the 5th link in the blog post