JavaScript Concepts You Should Know Before Learning React.

A thread 🧵 ↓

1. let, const, and var.

• Difference between let, const, and var.
• Their scopes and declarations.

Here's a details thread about them ↓

https://t.co/45B9b826HE
2. Arrow Functions

• What are arrow functions?
• Difference between traditional and arrow functions.
• Scoping of arrow functions (lexical).

Here's an elaborated article about arrow functions ↓
https://t.co/amgmsQhQQ8
3. Template Literals

• What are template literals?
• How to use them?
• Limitations and disadvantages.

MDN's docs has got you covered ↓

https://t.co/KwYtiiCoMh
4. Destructuring Assignment

• Array and object destructuring.
• Nested destructuring.

This MDN doc will help you learn all you need to know ↓

https://t.co/kcW2VGSTEd
5. Working with APIs

• Using the fetch API.
• The Request-Response cycle.
• Async/Await and Promises

Here's a tutorial on how to use fetch ↓

https://t.co/jSuPXM1PTi
6. Async/Await and Promises

• What is asynchronous programming?
• What are Promises and how to work with them.
• Async/Await and Callbacks.

Here's a good article on Async/Await ↓

https://t.co/xrtI8vwd40
7. JavaScript Modules

• Import and Export modules.
• Dynamic Imports.
• Limitations of modules.

Here's an article that'll help you learn JS Modules ↓

https://t.co/tB315KSU9g
That's all for now.

If you liked this thread, make sure to:

1. Follow me @parik36

2. Retweet the first tweet

Thank you so much for getting to the end of the thread 💙 ! Let me know what you think below 😊 .

Cheers! 🍻

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?