41–50 of 102 posts
So kudos to them for criticizing the crap out of the site? (I do also see what they are doing as valuable, but I'd agree it's needlessly hostile).
I of course didn't learn exclusively from w3chools (I doubt anyone does), it's just a resource. Not perfect, but it's useful.
Except w3schools isn't approachable and it isn't for beginners. It's jargon loaded and filled with a bunch of information that means nothing to beginners. Let's look the page for explaining 'div': http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_div.asp "The tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document. The tag is used to group block-elements to format them with styles." Oh, I get it. Its for grouping block-elements(??)…
w3schools is not the best resource, but 90% of the time, when it shows up as the top result on Google, it tells me exactly what I want to know. Some common examples: - What values does CSS attribute white-space take? #1 result on Google for "css white-space" is http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_text_white-space.asp which has exactly what I need to know. - What members does the Array object in JavaScript have? For th…
So? The 2nd result (MDN) does the same, looks better, and almost never contains inaccuracies or bad practices. > it's reliable That's the whole point of w3fools: w3s is not reliable.
This unreliable (albeit crystal-clear) source did not stop me from scoring a good portfolio and happy clients (http://linkd.in/ON5eHL).
w3schools is not the best resource, but 90% of the time, when it shows up as the top result on Google, it tells me exactly what I want to know. Some common examples: - What values does CSS attribute white-space take? #1 result on Google for "css white-space" is http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_text_white-space.asp which has exactly what I need to know. - What members does the Array object in JavaScript have? For th…
So? The 2nd result (MDN) does the same, looks better, and almost never contains inaccuracies or bad practices. > it's reliable That's the whole point of w3fools: w3s is not reliable.
> So? The 2nd result (MDN) does the same, looks better, and almost never contains gross errors/bad practices.
So indeed. I have nothing against MDN--it's great. If it was the first result, I'd click on it instead.
What is it 2008?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? The 2nd result (MDN) does the same, looks better, and almost never contains inaccuracies or bad practices. > it's reliable That's the whole point of w3fools: w3s is not reliable.
> "That's the point of w3fools: w3s is not reliable..." This unreliable (albeit crystal-clear) source did not stop me from scoring a good portfolio and happy clients ( http://linkd.in/ON5eHL ).
Your point seems to be that w3schools has a special place in your heart. Okay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "That's the point of w3fools: w3s is not reliable..." This unreliable (albeit crystal-clear) source did not stop me from scoring a good portfolio and happy clients ( http://linkd.in/ON5eHL ).
Working on a crappy Fujitsu laptop for years didn't stop me either, but I don't go out of my way to defend it. Your point seems to be that w3schools has a special place in your heart. Okay.
> "Your point seems to be that w3schools has a special place in your heart. Okay."
Yep.