4 ms·
My "poor engineering" remark was a response to your original comment stating that "In the past, standards were developed through engineering and computer scienc
by TheCoreh 9y ago
My "poor engineering" remark was a response to your original comment stating that "In the past, standards were developed through engineering and computer science."
Re: "not wanting to think or do the work": why would anyone want to think more or do extra work that is not required, except perhaps for fun? Computers were created precisely to automate and abstract away mundane tasks (such as adding padding measurements mentally). Only at Google/Facebook scales the extra bytes/CPU cycles added by setting box-sizing for all elements might perhaps make a difference. For everyone else the maintenance, time benefits of reducing the mental overhead imply on actual reduced costs, since you can ship your page/app faster.
- sureaboutthis 9y agoMy remark was in regard to my first statement about standards following fads but that does not mean the standard is poorly engineered. My main point, again, falls back to people wanting things done for them because they don't take the time to learn how things works. They want things done for them and never learn the basics, the foundation of understanding. If one cannot figure out how to make an element a certain width using "width" + padding + border + margin because they never bothered to read the specification, or any of the multitude of online tutorials, where it is clearly explained that width is the containment area alone, then this is nothing more than plain laziness mixed with "give me teh codez".