4 ms·

You seem to be calling out BEM as a "crazy namespacing convention" - but as awkward as those underscores are to type, they _do_ seem to do the job. I'm just a

You seem to be calling out BEM as a "crazy namespacing convention" - but as awkward as those underscores are to type, they _do_ seem to do the job. I'm just a bit lairy of adding yet another proprietary tool to my buildchain to try and bend the web platform to my will.

NathanCH 9y ago
Anyone who dismisses BEM because of the syntax is missing the point of BEM entirely.
- monfera 9y ago
  I think there are other reasons for dismissing BEM, it's quite an opinionated and shallow structuring, good for some stuff and not for others. Very HTML tag oriented, for which we have, well, HTML tags already. Its claims are simply not true (eg. "Reduces style conflicts by keeping CSS specificity to a minimum level."). Even in syntax, it saves on silly things (".btn"?) and wastes much more on, in effect, introducing Hungarian notation to CSS. I could go on but no time rn
  - NathanCH 9y ago
    Please do go on. Can you explain what you're talking about re: HTML tags? Maybe brush up here http://getbem.com/naming/ http://getbem.com/naming/
rich_harris 9y ago
I don't work at the Guardian any more, I'm at the New York Times, where we are starting to use Svelte for some stuff (see e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/09/upshot/game-of-thrones-chart.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/09/upshot/game-o...). Though I haven't spent a lot of time evangelizing it to my coworkers here to be honest — if people are happy with their current tools then I've got no interest in shoving Svelte in front of them. > I'm just a bit lairy of adding yet another proprietary tool to my buildchain to try and bend the web platform to my will. By using Svelte I've found that I no longer need to bother with any CSS pre/postprocessors or minifiers (I was mainly using them for scoping, which is no longer necessary), and I don't need to faff around transpiling JSX. So you might find you add one build tool but get rid of two others!

NathanCH 9y ago

Anyone who dismisses BEM because of the syntax is missing the point of BEM entirely.

monfera 9y ago
I think there are other reasons for dismissing BEM, it's quite an opinionated and shallow structuring, good for some stuff and not for others. Very HTML tag oriented, for which we have, well, HTML tags already. Its claims are simply not true (eg. "Reduces style conflicts by keeping CSS specificity to a minimum level."). Even in syntax, it saves on silly things (".btn"?) and wastes much more on, in effect, introducing Hungarian notation to CSS. I could go on but no time rn
- NathanCH 9y ago
  Please do go on. Can you explain what you're talking about re: HTML tags? Maybe brush up here http://getbem.com/naming/ http://getbem.com/naming/

rich_harris 9y ago

I don't work at the Guardian any more, I'm at the New York Times, where we are starting to use Svelte for some stuff (see e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/09/upshot/game-of-thrones-chart.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/09/upshot/game-o...). Though I haven't spent a lot of time evangelizing it to my coworkers here to be honest — if people are happy with their current tools then I've got no interest in shoving Svelte in front of them. > I'm just a bit lairy of adding yet another proprietary tool to my buildchain to try and bend the web platform to my will. By using Svelte I've found that I no longer need to bother with any CSS pre/postprocessors or minifiers (I was mainly using them for scoping, which is no longer necessary), and I don't need to faff around transpiling JSX. So you might find you add one build tool but get rid of two others!