Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

JavaScript: Classes 2nd Assignment should tell us to skip the "Accessor descriptors" section #29061

Open
2 of 3 tasks
hbar1st opened this issue Nov 7, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #28947
Open
2 of 3 tasks
Assignees

Comments

@hbar1st
Copy link

hbar1st commented Nov 7, 2024

Checks

Describe your suggestion

In the Classes page of the JS curriculum here , the Assignment section, item #2 starts out by saying:

JavaScript.info’s article on Getters and Setters should get you up to speed on “Getters and Setters”,

When we read it though, there is a section titled "Accessor descriptors" which introduces some new concepts that are confusing and without explanation. These are: descriptor, data property vs accessor property, property flags (writable etc). Direct link to this section: https://javascript.info/property-accessors#accessor-descriptors

Perhaps it would be better to suggest to readers to skip this section of the linked article since it delves into things that haven't been covered by TOP yet? (I assume that these are discussed in a future topic that is. If not, then maybe they ought to be?)

Path

Node / JS

Lesson Url

https://www.theodinproject.com/lessons/node-path-javascript-classes

(Optional) Discord Name

No response

(Optional) Additional Comments

No response

@MaoShizhong
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for opening this issue. The "data/accessor property" bit is fine since they're new terms the article is introducing and explaining at the start. The descriptors/flags bit is written as a continuation of previous teaching on it though, so I agree with that bit.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to dig into property descriptors at this point. They are unlikely to be vital in TOP projects here, so a note can be added to skip that section since it's out of scope. I like the rest of the article though.

I'll add this change to #28947 which will close this issue as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants