u/Parky-Park wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
At least one of the head instructors at Codesmith describes it as a firehose approach, so they don't hide that part. But your React example is kind of funny, because officially, they still don't include hooks as part of the program. React is still taught via class components, an
u/michaelnovati replied · ★ FEATURED
I heard from someone that they talked about hooks very briefly after finishing the class component approach. When questioned why, the response was, paraphrased, 'the Codesmith leadership have developed this curriculum minute by minute to perfect it and you have to trust it. most code in the industry is class components so you need to be prepared for real code you will work with and hooks are not used widely yet'.
This is a decent argument for why class components, other than the arrogant first part haha, should be taught. But my opinion is that a really strong engineer could switch between them with minimal effort because they understand how things work under the hood. They would naturally absorb the relationship between component mounting callbacks and useEffect by understanding the underlying role both play in the component lifecycle.
If someone could teach the abstract part and naturally see classes or hooks as an expression of that, then they would truly teaching the under the hood. What most people I talk to have said is that it's a firehose and they barely absorb 20% of what's being said.
RE: Hooks. I think they are easier to learn and understand how React works. So I would teach them first for that reason. And then I would teach converting back and forth so people's brains can see the patterns.