3 ms·

This stuff never scales. No one can remember the class names, no one want's to search through the examples and style guides for a project, no one want's to stan

by weego 8y ago

This stuff never scales. No one can remember the class names, no one want's to search through the examples and style guides for a project, no one want's to standardise naming of their own hacks etc and so you start of with good intentions and end up with a lot of duplication and a whole lot of shit. CSS is an expressive markup. You shouldn't try to turn it into programming.

1_player 8y ago
> This stuff never scales. No one can remember class names Are you saying that with a CSS file with one-class-per-component it's easier to remember the hundreds if not thousands of class names, compared to a functional library, where you only have to remember a handful of them? You might not like it, but the very reason of existence of functional CSS libraries is to limit the number of classes and improve reusability and composition.
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  Have you written a line of CSS, ever?! Why would anyone restrict themselves to one class per component? Do you know that classes can be combined? Do you know how specificity works? CSS fundamentally lends itself to being compositional. Suggesting that this isn't the case without added libraries is either ignorance or madness.
- weego 8y ago
  No, I'm saying anyone that tries to standardise CSS with a universal theory is wasting theirs and their companies time and resources. This approach sucks and you end up with "gutter-left-10 skin-primary-blue gutter-bottom-20 row-single col-3 designer-lastminute-overridehack" which is just proxying CSS into class names and does not scale or transfer to anyone you bring onto a project. BEM is equally awful because you're encoding structural data into the class name which again is just proxying CSS.
marcosdumay 8y ago
CSS never scales. The point of turning it into programming is to make it scale. But all those frameworks are completely missing the point (what's the problem of web technologies? They seem to always miss the point, prioritize the non-solution, and complain loudly of anybody that complains about the actual problem). A framework can not solve the scaling problem because it's a language problem, and the preprocessors focus only on expanding things, when the specificity is a larger problem than DRY.

by weego 8y ago

1_player 8y ago

> This stuff never scales. No one can remember class names Are you saying that with a CSS file with one-class-per-component it's easier to remember the hundreds if not thousands of class names, compared to a functional library, where you only have to remember a handful of them? You might not like it, but the very reason of existence of functional CSS libraries is to limit the number of classes and improve reusability and composition.

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
Have you written a line of CSS, ever?! Why would anyone restrict themselves to one class per component? Do you know that classes can be combined? Do you know how specificity works? CSS fundamentally lends itself to being compositional. Suggesting that this isn't the case without added libraries is either ignorance or madness.
weego 8y ago
No, I'm saying anyone that tries to standardise CSS with a universal theory is wasting theirs and their companies time and resources. This approach sucks and you end up with "gutter-left-10 skin-primary-blue gutter-bottom-20 row-single col-3 designer-lastminute-overridehack" which is just proxying CSS into class names and does not scale or transfer to anyone you bring onto a project. BEM is equally awful because you're encoding structural data into the class name which again is just proxying CSS.

marcosdumay 8y ago

CSS never scales. The point of turning it into programming is to make it scale. But all those frameworks are completely missing the point (what's the problem of web technologies? They seem to always miss the point, prioritize the non-solution, and complain loudly of anybody that complains about the actual problem). A framework can not solve the scaling problem because it's a language problem, and the preprocessors focus only on expanding things, when the specificity is a larger problem than DRY.