Improve Backend Curriculum Hosting Description

Ah… I think we should add that.


We did discuss this, but specifically decided not to put an external tool like Replit as the first option. So,

Do you have a suggestion for this? We need to keep it short because of how little people like to read.

Do feel free to open an issue/PR where others can also deliberate.

Can I ask what the argument for this is? Is there an issue you can point me to so you do not have to explain it again?

I think this sentence…

When you are done, make sure a working demo of your project is hosted somewhere public.

…doesn’t make a clear distinction between something hosted on GitHub and a live site capable of running NodeJS. I know it says “working demo” but looking at the forum that doesn’t seem to be clear enough.

1 Like

I think it would be nice if there was a sentence that provided campers with free hosting options that run node like Heroku.

The fact that the main fCC curriculum…

  • Does not teach Git.
  • Has no information about what GitHub is or how it works.
  • Does not teach local development.

…yet links to that as the first option for the projects seem a little suspect to me.

To me, it suggests the people involved in creating the curriculum (me, you, us) are taking things for granted because we know about them. Or worse, are catering to people that already know about things we do not teach. I find this problematic from a purely pedagogic perspective.

I cannot find anything on this :thinking: . I cannot remember what platform this happened on, so I could be making this up :man_shrugging: .

Plainly - it is in freeCodeCamp’s better interest not to be seen promoting one external product/tool over another.


No argument there.

Keep in mind, the next version of the curriculum does have a section on Git, and another section on GitHub. So, whilst this curriculum is not perfect, I would class the next as an improvement, and all that can be asked of the workflow - things take time to improve and iron-out.

Until then, what about something like:

a) If you are familiar with self-hosting, clone this GitHub repo…
b) Use our Replit starter…

And not even mention the “site-builder”, because that is covered in the self-hosting?

Not to be argumentative but GitHub is an external product/tool as well and has competitors like GitLab and Bitbucket.

I also don’t see how the order of the list changes anything in this regard. It just causes more people to pick that option even though they do not fully understand what is involved in using that option.

We do the same with the stack we teach, fCC uses the MERN stack and we teach the MERN stack. That is also promoting specific technologies over others.

Something like that. I wouldn’t mind it being blatantly obvious what knowledge is required for this option. Just so people do not randomly pick it just because it’s first on the list.

I don’t really get the site builder stuff at all. I’m not even sure what that refers to. I would vote to remove that from the list altogether.