Hacker News Reader

Comment by whoisjuan | Hacker News Reader

w3schools might not be the canonical and authoritative source for web technologies documentation but sometimes I find the most straightforward answer there.

They don’t deserve the hate they get. What people seem to hate from w3 is how light and loose they go about things, potentially opening some lanes for bad practices.

But they have improved a lot throughout the years. Also people don’t seem to acknowledge how hard is to create non-verbose documentation. I can’t imagine the amount of effort that it takes to trim all the fat and still produce something useful.

I almost get the feeling that people who hate w3schools, simply hate the concept of a resource that is trying to make easy what is by nature pretty hard.

I guess that’s how great singers feel about autotune.

It’s this idea that if you can’t consume the raw, hardcore documentation then you’re not worth it of using that technology.

View on HN

A lot of the w3schools hate probably comes from the "old days" when a lot of the documentation was inaccurate.

That was me. W3Schools has gone from good to crap back to good again.

It looks like an organization that fired all's the vanity-metric chasing PMs and is coming back to "first principles"

Isn't it just one or a couple of guys in Stavanger, Norway?

Edit: 5 employees according to this: https://www.proff.no/selskap/refsnes-data-as/sandnes/it-kons...

Not everything needs to be big :-)

Which begs the question: how does W3schools do it, while Mozilla can't?

There's a huge difference (order of magnitude) between the size of those projects.

And I'm saying that as someone who'll admit to having been critical of Mozilla in the last two days.

Cool, sounds ripe for some private equity.

See https://www.w3fools.com/ for some of the complaints folks have/had.

Have you actually clicked your own link?

The front page now says:

Today, W3Schools has largely resolved these issues and addressed the majority of the undersigned developers' concerns. For many beginners, W3Schools has structured tutorials and playgrounds that offer a decent learning experience.

1f60c probably has, that message has been there for a while. The link was likely posted for the historical curiosity, not because (most of?) those complaints are particularly relevant anymore.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> It’s this idea that if you can’t consume the raw, hardcore documentation then you’re not worth it of using that technology.

I tend to avoid w3schools but this isn't at all the reason why. I don't believe that what w3schools provides is a made-easy resource for a hard concept. Actually I would say that's exactly what MDN is.

For the most part, I find that w3schools usually only provides a basic enumeration of the possible property values for an attribute or something like that with absolutely no additional insight whatsoever. I don't really believe that is helpful for beginners even in a pragmatic sense. Yet, somehow they continually peg the top of any HTML-related Google search.

MDN on the other hand almost surely details the most important caveats and practical aspects about whatever it is you're looking up. That I think is some of the most important information for beginners. It does not provide the same kind of "raw hardcore" documentation you'd get from reading the spec for example.

I agree, honestly I use w3schools more than MDN when I'm googling stuff. Most of the time I'm just looking for a quick example of whatever HTML/CSS I need to implement, and w3schools provides that perfectly while MDN is a bit more cluttered.

MDN is not a guide or tutorial. It is more like a manual or reference, searching a manual or reference, works only when you know what you are looking for. Reading it like a book is better way to use it until you are familiar with it. Yes it takes more time but it pays off.

Learning of the manual once you get used to it is better because, You get answers to questions that you did not know you had . It gives you a comprehensive understanding of the entire feature set, not just the stuff that looks important now .

Copy pasting a implementation of stackOverflow/ w3schools etc usually keeps us in search and copy loop, constantly searching for some snippet without fully understanding how or why. Many times we end up spending a lot of time in frustration when the full solution is hack from four different places and they don't seem to work together.

I'd describe MSN as being true to the spec without the complexity of the spec.

Thanks all - I am simultaneously heartened by the positive attitude for this often maligned site, as well as shocked at myself for supporting them myself :) Quite the rubber-band effect, but super nice to see a civil discussion about this topic on HN.

Indeed, the hate has gone too far on w3schools. MDN is the gold standard of comprehensive API reference, but w3 is nice for quick simple answers in an easy to read format.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com