> It's great that people want to try out new frameworks, as I do all the time, but it would be much better if people tried building something a bit more detailed than the standard To Do app.
And, you know, people do. A tutorial app isn't the extent of what the author tried out, its something where the author felt would provide a good basis for pedagogy on the tool it is a tutorial for.
> And if you're going to do a To Do app, or any tutorial for that matter, it should include tests as testing is a priority when building real world applications.
Plenty of tutorials include testing, but if the framework being demonstrated isn't particularly special in terms of testing given the language and other aspects of the platform, there's not necessarily a compelling reason for every tutorial to do so.
Seems to me the complaint here is "people supplying job-relevant training material to the world for free aren't always doing it exactly the way I'd prefer to have it", which is pretty entitled.
And, you know, people do. A tutorial app isn't the extent of what the author tried out, its something where the author felt would provide a good basis for pedagogy on the tool it is a tutorial for.
> And if you're going to do a To Do app, or any tutorial for that matter, it should include tests as testing is a priority when building real world applications.
Plenty of tutorials include testing, but if the framework being demonstrated isn't particularly special in terms of testing given the language and other aspects of the platform, there's not necessarily a compelling reason for every tutorial to do so.
Seems to me the complaint here is "people supplying job-relevant training material to the world for free aren't always doing it exactly the way I'd prefer to have it", which is pretty entitled.