React Roadmap for Beginners in 2022.
🧵
➙ Create React app
➙ Function Components
➙ Class Components
➙ JSX
➙ Props
➙ State
➙ useState and useEffect Hooks
➙ Conditional Rendering
➙ Lists and Keys
➙ Building Simple Forms
➙ Composition and Inheritance
➙ useContext
➙ useReducer
➙ useRef
➙ useMemo
➙ useCallback
➙ Custom Hooks
➙ Higher-Order Components
➙ Render Props
➙ Reconciliation
➙ Redux/Mobx/Recoil
➙ Apollo Client
➙ React Query
➪ Routing
➙ React Location
➙ React Router
➙ Styled Components
➙ Tailwind CSS
➙ Chakra UI/ Material UI
➪ Forms
➙ Formik
➙ React Hook Form
https://t.co/gdGj0WZTjy
8\ufe0f\u20e3 JavaScript Frameworks.
— Mohammed Junaid \U0001f3af (@mdjunaidap) July 14, 2021
\u2b55 REACTJs
Official Website: https://t.co/ImSGpOkTcq
\U0001f4a2 YouTube.
1. React tutorials for Beginners.
\U0001f517 https://t.co/vToH5MDBeN
2. ReactJs Crash Course.
\U0001f517 https://t.co/CMgL3nolEa
3 . React full Course in 12 Hours.
\U0001f517 https://t.co/IhrRXeMOmT
Goldmine🌟 for Developers, Designers, and Creators.
Learn.
Build.
Sell.
I've Curated incredible tools and learning resources for developers, designers & content creators.
https://t.co/2XaQR6ASYw
More from Mohammed Junaid 🎯
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?