The following is a blog post from FrontendCheck.com, a platform that teaches devs how to build unique SaaS with enterprise architecture. Your patterns. Your portfolio. Your thing.
Every coding tutorial tells you exactly what to build. A todo app. A weather dashboard. A Twitter clone. We do something different—we teach the architecture and let you decide what product to create. Here's the philosophy behind that choice.
The Problem with Prescribed Projects
Traditional tutorials have a fundamental tension: they need to teach technical concepts, but they also need to tell you what to build. The result is millions of developers with identical portfolios.
How many todo apps exist in the world? How many weather dashboards? How many Twitter clones that look exactly like the tutorial they came from?
When everyone builds the same thing, several problems emerge:
- Your portfolio doesn't stand out. Hiring managers have seen the same projects hundreds of times.
- You don't practice making product decisions. Real work requires deciding what to build, not just how.
- Motivation suffers. Building something you don't care about is a slog.
- You can't explain your work with passion. Try getting excited about todo app #38 in an interview.
Separating Architecture from Product
Here's the insight that changed everything for us: the architectural patterns are the same regardless of what you're building.
Multi-tenant data isolation works the same way whether you're building a task manager, a CRM, or a cat fashion store. Role-based permissions follow the same patterns whether it's for a notes app or an ex-tracking relationship retrospective tool. Theming systems, internationalization, real-time updates—the architecture is consistent.
So why force everyone to build the same product?
We separated the concerns. We teach the architecture—the patterns that transfer to any product. You decide what product to apply them to.
Domain-Adaptive Learning
We call this approach domain-adaptive learning. Each challenge teaches specific architectural patterns, but you choose the domain that interests you.
Want to build a task manager? Great—maybe it becomes ChoreQuest, a gamified household chore tracker. Or ADHD Brain Dump, a neurodivergent-friendly task capture tool. The domain provides the vocabulary and data structures. You decide the personality.
Prefer a CRM? It could become Meowdrobe, managing cat fashion influencer relationships. Or Band Manager, tracking touring musician contacts. Same architectural patterns, completely different products.
Two people completing the same challenge will have entirely different portfolio pieces. Both learned identical skills. Neither can be accused of just copying a tutorial.
Why This Matters for Your Career
When you interview for a frontend role, you'll be asked about projects you've built. The difference between these two answers is significant:
"I built a todo app from a tutorial. It has CRUD operations."
versus:
"I built ChoreQuest, a gamified household task manager. It uses multi-tenant architecture so families can have separate workspaces, role-based permissions so parents and kids have different capabilities, and a dynamic theming system so each family can customize their experience. I chose the gamification angle because I wanted to solve the problem of motivating kids to do chores."
The second answer demonstrates the same technical skills but shows something more: product thinking, creativity, and genuine investment in the problem being solved.
Creative Ownership Creates Better Learning
There's a pedagogical reason for this approach too. When you care about what you're building, you learn better.
Motivation isn't just nice to have—it's essential for deep learning. When you're building something you actually want to exist, you push through the hard parts. You go beyond the minimum requirements. You think about edge cases because they matter to your vision, not because a tutorial told you to.
The architecture we teach is genuinely challenging. Multi-tenant data isolation, permission systems, internationalization—these aren't simple topics. Having a product you care about makes the challenge worth tackling.
The Weird App Advantage
We encourage weird app ideas. Not because weird is better, but because weird is memorable.
A cat fashion store CRM sticks in people's minds. A meditation app for programmers called /dev/zen makes people smile. An ex-tracking relationship retrospective tool makes people ask questions.
Memorable projects get discussed. They get shared. They make interviewers curious. They demonstrate personality.
And here's the thing: the technical patterns are exactly the same as "serious" apps. A cat fashion store CRM and a real enterprise CRM use identical multi-tenant architecture. The whimsy doesn't diminish the technical achievement—it just makes it more interesting to talk about.
How It Works in Practice
When you start a FrontendCheck challenge, you choose from available domains—task manager, CRM, notes app, inventory, and more. Each domain comes with appropriate vocabulary, data structures, and example applications.
Then you receive stakeholder emails introducing requirements. These requirements teach architectural patterns: "We need to support multiple organizations" teaches multi-tenancy. "Different user roles need different permissions" teaches RBAC. The patterns are consistent; the product context is yours.
You build your app using these patterns. You name it. You style it. You deploy it. When you're done, you have a unique portfolio piece that demonstrates enterprise-level skills in a package that's entirely your own.
Architecture Transfers, Products Don't
The skills you learn are the same regardless of what you build. Multi-tenant architecture works identically in a task manager and a CRM. Permission systems follow the same patterns whether you're managing chores or managing inventory.
But the product? That's yours. That's what makes your portfolio unique. That's what you'll talk about in interviews with genuine enthusiasm.
We don't tell you what to build because we don't need to. The architecture is what matters, and that we teach thoroughly. The product is what makes it yours—and that should come from you.
Key takeaway: We teach enterprise architecture patterns. You decide what product to build with them. Same skills, unique portfolio. That's the FrontendCheck philosophy.
If you'd like to build your own unique SaaS using enterprise frontend techniques, then start the free challenge over at FrontendCheck.com.
Top comments (0)