I'm not particularly good at identifying satire, but this is a joke, right? I mean, the ONE BEST THING about CSS is its ability to promote consistent styling a

I'm not particularly good at identifying satire, but this is a joke, right? I mean, the ONE BEST THING about CSS is its ability to promote consistent styling across a site by creating REUSABLE, NAMED styles that are SEMANTIC and applying them consistently. Let us run through the author's claimed list of advantages: > You don't have to write any CSS of your own (which, to me, is fantastic) This one is an obvious troll. > You can likely build things faster (obviously non-scientific, but anecdotally I've seen many people confirm this) The combination of "likely" and "obviously non-scientific" undermines this claim (and rightly so) in the middle of making it. > You don't ever have to think about naming things Again, I presume this is a troll. Naming things is hard if you care about having meaningful names. If you don't care, then naming is trivial. This approach eliminates meaningful names so it is hardly a benefit. > You can tell what something looks like by just reading the markup for it That one is an actual advantage, and makes me wonder slightly what's going on. > You don't ever have to worry that changing the styles for one thing will break something else (which may make visual regression testing irrelevant) Another obvious troll. If you never reuse anything, you'll never have to worry about a change breaking anything else. Also true if you never change anything. Also completely meaningless. > You never have to deal with one instance of a thing needing a slightly different style than the other instances, which screws up your reusable classes. True enough... if you never reuse anything, then you never need to worry about the impacts of reuse. > Your CSS always stays the same size rather than expanding over time Well, sure! If you move all of the intent out of the CSS file and into longer and more complex style attributes, then the CSS file itself will get shorter (while the length of the CSS file PLUS the style attributes will get longer). > It's easy to un-apply a style by just removing the class (as opposed to the traditional cascade where you typically have to override, adding even more CSS) This isn't even well-considered. Using a fixed set of single-visual-effect-not-semantic-intent styles will have no effect on the complexity of cascading. Choosing to apply styles only to individual elements and eschew the use of cascading WILL avoid all the complexity of cascading, but the choice to do that is independent. > Rendering speed performance is supposedly improved (though I have seen no proof of this) There is no reason this would be true, and the author isn't even claiming it. After reading it through, I am beginning to seriously doubt that this was intended as satire. In which case the author is very, VERY wrong. I continue to hope that I am simply missing the joke.