4 ms·

> I'd say go to something that's popular/supported vs. a project that hasn't seen a commit in 2 years. Isn't the whole point of a micro lib that it is limited

by jb3689 6y ago

> I'd say go to something that's popular/supported vs. a project that hasn't seen a commit in 2 years. Isn't the whole point of a micro lib that it is limited in scope, well-designed, and shouldn't need to change much? I have my own libraries that see few commits as of late but still work fine I haven't tried this yet, but in the author's defense the repo has no issues against it, so it's not like there is tangible proof that the author is neglecting maintenance or anything. Besides, the whole thing <500 lines of CSS - if it does what you need it to why go with anything that would be more complicated and more likely to break with an upgrade?

onion2k 6y ago
Isn't the whole point of a micro lib that it is limited in scope, well-designed, and shouldn't need to change much? In the case of a CSS framework specifically, browsers are a moving target and you would expect changes to either fix issues or to take advantage of new features. 2018 is more than 10 versions of Chrome old, and while it's possible that nothing in that time was worth adding to this framework it does seem unlikely. At the very least you'd expect a line in a readme to be updated to say its been tested and it works.
- tasogare 6y ago
  As long as the old thing works there is no reason to chase the new features, especially because they are by definition not available in old browsers.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    Sure, which is exactly why I said I'd expect at least an occasional update to a readme to say the framework has been tested and still works. More broadly for web dev though, the fact a feature isn't available in old browsers is a bad a reason not to use a new feature if it's useful and improves a site for the user. Obviously you shouldn't break your site in old browsers but progressively enhancing to take advantage of things is a very good thing. Browsers implemented @supports in CSS for precisely this reason.

by jb3689 6y ago

onion2k 6y ago

Isn't the whole point of a micro lib that it is limited in scope, well-designed, and shouldn't need to change much? In the case of a CSS framework specifically, browsers are a moving target and you would expect changes to either fix issues or to take advantage of new features. 2018 is more than 10 versions of Chrome old, and while it's possible that nothing in that time was worth adding to this framework it does seem unlikely. At the very least you'd expect a line in a readme to be updated to say its been tested and it works.

tasogare 6y ago
As long as the old thing works there is no reason to chase the new features, especially because they are by definition not available in old browsers.
- onion2k 6y ago
  Sure, which is exactly why I said I'd expect at least an occasional update to a readme to say the framework has been tested and still works. More broadly for web dev though, the fact a feature isn't available in old browsers is a bad a reason not to use a new feature if it's useful and improves a site for the user. Obviously you shouldn't break your site in old browsers but progressively enhancing to take advantage of things is a very good thing. Browsers implemented @supports in CSS for precisely this reason.