So cool. Good luck!
Also in case it helps, couple tiny corrections for the landing page:
(“is run by” and “existence”).
Its preface and first few chapters sort of present itself as a book intended to teach the absolute basics of programming to someone who has never done any programming at all before. A first book. And I think you'll find that if you give it as a sole resource to someone in that position, it just moves too quickly through the fundamentals. It's definitely a second book or a third book, or a book for reading after someone made it through a few of those ultra-beginner courses on Codecademy or Khan Academy or wherever.
That said: I love this book!
no_understand = author(!put_repo_url(site)) || me_blind;
I don't know if it's meant as a joke, but isn't it usually known as ES6 or ECMAScript 2015? And people quarrel over which to use?
Full “ECMAScript” seems more common for clarity in proposals.
Serious question: Does this also refer to client side web developers? According to caniuse.com, only around 83% of web browsers support the let statement, which in most cases wouldn't cut it when releasing a web site or web app to accommodate the largest audience.
Out of curiosity, what do you see you're giving up? Is it the theoretical knowledge that the code exactly as written is being interpreted? I find that the compiled code is very human readable nowadays, and with sourcemaps it's not an issue at all as browser dev tools will directly link to the source files instead of the compiled files. I used to think I was giving up something until I worked with such a setup.
Mainly the feeling of giving up simplicity. Adding things (such as sourcemaps and any relevant configuration changes) usually detracts from the sense of "no middleman", although I know "no middleman" is always an illusion, it's less obvious when you don't have to do anything to create it.
I'm definitely backing this