Update Getting-started.md

[SephReed]

There's nothing about creating a file yourself. CLI's are terribly untrustworthy, and do nothing to explain what's actually going on. The examples are currently the only means of creating a project without magic.

Checklist

👉 Read and sign the CLA (Contributor License Agreement) 👈

• npm test passes on your machine
• New tests added or existing tests modified to cover all changes
• Code conforms with the style guide
• API Documentation in code was updated
• Documentation in /docs/site was updated
• Affected artifact templates in packages/cli were updated
• Affected example projects in examples/* were updated

👉 Check out how to submit a PR 👈

[raymondfeng]

@SephReed

Thank you for submitting a PR. I'm afraid that your proposed change does not seem be very constructive.

There's nothing about creating a file yourself. CLI's are terribly untrustworthy, and do nothing to explain what's actually going on. The examples are currently the only means of creating a project without magic.

Can you be more specific about the challenges you have and issues you run into with our CLI? Please elaborate so that we can understand your pain points.

Did you have chances to check out the following docs?

• https://loopback.io/doc/en/lb4/Command-line-interface.html
• https://loopback.io/doc/en/lb4/Examples.html

[SephReed]

Using a CLI to generate code is like using a WYSIWYG to create a website. I'm currently trying to write up some docs on how to simply write code to create a project, and the only way forwards has been to look at the examples.

[bajtos]

Thank you @SephReed for the pull request and starting a discussion about enabling developers to build LoopBack applications without CLI. I think I understand your point of view, I have written countless small LoopBack applications without using our CLI and the conventional bootstrapper (loopback-boot in pre-LB4 days and @loopback/boot in LB4).
I agree with you it would be great to have some documentation explaining how to write LoopBack applications this way.

The key requirement is to make such documentation positive and constructive. I understand you may be frustrated by the current lack of resources to support your use case, but there is no need to spread those negative emotions to other LoopBack users!

It's important to realize that documentation is always a living document and work in progress, it can never answer all questions. Partly because it's not possible to anticipate them, partly because we have limited time available and have to carefully prioritize what parts of our docs are worth investing into, both in terms of initial writing but also ongoing maintenance.

To move this pull request forward, I'd like to propose two specific steps:

1. Let's create a new documentation page (a new file with its own URL), where we can explain how to build an application without lb4. This page can start as mostly empty, perhaps just as a skeleton outlining what topics we would like to describe. (E.g. how to create an app, how to add a datasource, etc.) You can include a call to action inviting readers to contribute more content.

2. Modify existing pages with a link to the newly created page. For example, in docs/site/Getting-started.md, you can add something along the following lines:

   It is also possible to build a LoopBack application without using the `lb4` CLI, 
   learn more in <link>
   

   See Alerts for information on how to highlight such note.

   Few more pages where you may want to add the link: Command-line interface reference, Booting an application, Behind the scene - I guess this depends on how deep do you want to go in the new page.

I think it's best to build this doc iteratively in small incremental pull requests 💪 I am happy to help you fill the missing bits where needed.

[stale]

This issue has been closed due to continued inactivity. Thank you for your understanding. If you believe this to be in error, please contact one of the code owners, listed in the CODEOWNERS file at the top-level of this repository.