Why not different backend options

Why not different backend options

Why do fCC don’t go with different backends? Becoming a more attractive platform and different from the others?

We have a lot of different stacks in the world, yes i agree that would be very very difficult having all of them in here, but why not the most “popular” ones, like Java with Spring Boot, .Net Core, RoR, Python, etc?

Yes, it can be overwhelming for a new camper but with this it can also have a, let’s say, dev route that could give direction to this new camper.

Programming concepts remain the same in every technology, so it can easily be transferred to a new stack.

I suspect that this comes down to a couple things:

  1. Limited time, people, and resources. Remember that FCC is a nonprofit which is primarily built and maintained by volunteers. I know that a Python curriculum is/was in development for years, but my understanding was that it mostly came down to one person trying to do the whole thing.
  2. FCC seems to have taken an attitude that it is better to do one thing very well than to do several things half-assed. FCC has gone through 6 major version updates over the years, always focusing on making a better full stack web development curriculum.

The tech stacks are not though, somebody has to build that entire curriculum including the infrastructure and a testing framework for learners.

For each language/framework, there would need to be a curriculum plan + infrastructure that ran code tests on the backend + a way to run code interactively on a front end that does not support doing the language + [for frameworks] a way to allow learners to incrementally build parts of apps on a front-end that, again, does not support the language. There are obviously a few ways to do bits of this (put code into the front end and it gets evaluated on the backend) like repl.it, but it’s extremely non-trivial

1 Like

Thank you for the responses and thank you for clarifying me in this matter.