3 ms·
Oh I do, I do... and I agree that many of the things CSS does for you today are vastly better than the ad-hoc solutions we had in the past (if you ever have to
by bshimmin 10y ago
Oh I do, I do... and I agree that many of the things CSS does for you today are vastly better than the ad-hoc solutions we had in the past (if you ever have to create an HTML email - and thankfully I am able to outsource all of that sort of work to someone who actually takes a perverse pleasure in it - that's always a nice reminder of how silly HTML and CSS were in the late '90s before CSS was actually broadly usable).
But still... some of the syntax we have now, not to mention the sheer breadth of verbiage, is insane. CSS feels like it's been groaning under the weight of all of this guff for quite some time now, and adding new obscure units and funny things in square brackets isn't really going to improve matters.
- sangnoir 10y ago> But still... some of the syntax we have now, not to mention the sheer breadth of verbiage, is insane I had somehow missed that your gripe is with the syntax - I fully agree with you on that! CSS definitely feels kludgey, especially for larger/complex apps or sites. I now think of real CSS as a target that my build system generates as I mostly write in Sass or LESS. I find those superior to vanilla CSS in maintainability and composability.
- kakarot 10y agoI couldn't go back to vanilla CSS. Even with just its basic nesting features, SCSS enables a much more modular, compartmentalized, and parsable format, with a clear view of the overall hierarchy via imports