From the article -- The point is, learning modern JavaScript requires human intervention. Things haven’t settled down long enough for curriculums and guides to gel and mature, and for best practices to become authoritative for more than a few months.
And this is why its not the right path. Two things really strike me about 'modern' JS, one is that everyone rewrites the same dam things in a different way just to say "Yeah, I'm the person behind the <mumble, mumble> framework." which adds no value over the <grumble, grumble> framework, just that it uses some new construct of the hour.
The second is that when you're being thrown into a sea of change like that, you have to learn the fundamental language and its environment so that you can move between the frameworks and still be effective. Learning any particular system will apparently be useless.
I've had a productive enough time for the last 5 or so years not following any of the JS sphere and just sticking to jquery and the occasional other small library (dynamic color picking widgets and the like) as appropriate. It's not a sea of change unless you make it one.
That is a solid strategy, and one I endorse, but it is one that is criticized by this article and others like it which would consider you an 'old tyme' jS developer. :-(
And this is why its not the right path. Two things really strike me about 'modern' JS, one is that everyone rewrites the same dam things in a different way just to say "Yeah, I'm the person behind the <mumble, mumble> framework." which adds no value over the <grumble, grumble> framework, just that it uses some new construct of the hour.
The second is that when you're being thrown into a sea of change like that, you have to learn the fundamental language and its environment so that you can move between the frameworks and still be effective. Learning any particular system will apparently be useless.