All lessons: Remove/replace Replit suggestions

[Eduardo06sp]

Because

we are removing Replit from the curriculum, so we need to remove any mentions of it.

This PR

• Removes any mention of Replit
  • Leaves IRB recommendation in place wherever it is already mentioned
• Replaces specific Replit suggestions with a more generic suggestion to just use a REPL
• Removes instructions for submitting a Replit live demo included in the Basic Informational Site project (from Introduction to NodeJS course)
• Replaces Replit suggestion with Codepen suggestion instead (in Join the Odin Community lesson)
  • Codepen is frequently used/recommended in the course and Discord already, so it makes more sense to suggest Codepen anyways

Issue

Related to #29054

Additional Information

Pull Request Requirements

• I have thoroughly read and understand The Odin Project curriculum contributing guide
• The title of this PR follows the location of change: brief description of change format, e.g. Intro to HTML and CSS lesson: Fix link text
• The Because section summarizes the reason for this PR
• The This PR section has a bullet point list describing the changes in this PR
• If this PR addresses an open issue, it is linked in the Issue section
• If any lesson files are included in this PR, they have been previewed with the Markdown preview tool to ensure it is formatted correctly
• If any lesson files are included in this PR, they follow the Layout Style Guide

[Eduardo06sp]

The linter errors don't seem to be related to the specific changes I made.

I absolutely don't mind fixing them if needed. However, I don't want to do that without permission.

[zachmmeyer]

I do think the linter errors should be fixed in a separate PR, and it shouldn't be you who has to fix it @Eduardo06sp.
I'd be curious to know how they make their way in this far, how they're getting approved.

[mao-sz]

The Node basic info project hasn't been touched for a while but will be when the relevant milestone is worked on in the Node revamp. Some of the other lint errors are due to "relatively" newer lint rules addressing stuff that's always been in the style guide but never caught due to no rule. Stuff like not having questions for learning overview items or no nested lists in the AR section, and IIRC a fair few Ruby lessons still have this. There are some script-fixable lint errors like line break stuff that can easily be addressed now.

[JoshDevHub]

This all looks pretty good.

Only change I'm going to request is I think cleaning up some of the lint errors is a nice, low effort change. There are a lot of them across these lessons(not introduced by you), but there are also already a decent amount of changes across a bunch of different files. So I don't think we should fix all of them in this PR, but for the ones that are correctable, there's little harm in just going ahead and cleaning those up. If you look at the linting section of the CONTRIBUTING doc, you'll find our fix scripts for autofixing lint problems. Run this PR's files through the relevant script (use the lesson one for lessons and the project one for projects) and add those changes in here.

After that I think I'm good to approve/merge this 🚀

[Eduardo06sp]

@JoshDevHub I just cleaned some of the auto-correctable ones up. In the Basic Informational Site project, I had to convert the HTML filenames to inline code manually. Otherwise, the linter was changing anything with .html to .HTML.

The rest were just adding blank lines, or using lazy numbering for one of the numbered lists.

Honestly, there aren't that many errors left, but I will leave them alone as you requested.

[KevinMulhern]

Are you happy for this one to be merged @JoshDevHub? most of the remaining linting errors seem to be related to learning outcomes that require a rewrite - probably best left to a separate PR?

[JoshDevHub]

Sorry for taking a while to return to this @Eduardo06sp

I think Mao's suggestion is a good one. Codepen is good for Foundations stuff and then quickly becomes unworkable even in the JS course. After that change, I think I'm good to approve and merge.

[Eduardo06sp]

I made the following changes in join_the_odin_community.md file:

• Clarified that user should use an "appropriate online REPL", with CodePen being an example after that

Throughout Ruby lessons and projects where REPL is mentioned:

• Clarified that user should use an "appropriate" REPL
• Generally speaking, I only made this change only where REPL is first mentioned on a given lesson/project, not subsequent mentions
• Re-ordered at least one sentence so that irb is recommended before "any other REPL", for the sake of consistency
  • e.g. "try irb or any other REPL" instead of "try using any REPL or irb"

In basic_data_types.md and debugging.md:

• I moved the link explaining what a REPL is to basic data types, because I believe that is where REPLs are first mentioned

I extended the change to other files because it seems that, as a beginner, seeing "use an appropriate REPL" will make you realize that you should search online for a Ruby-specific REPL.

I also moved the REPL explanation to the lesson where I believe it is first mentioned. It made more sense to give the introductory explanation where REPL is first mentioned, instead of much later in that section.

I will certainly revert those commits if anyone disagrees!

[KevinMulhern]

🚀