4 ms·

Crazy. This isn't a "framework". It's a stylesheet.

by _0o6v 6y ago

m12k 6y ago
Yeah, I think "blog theme" is probably the best it can be described.
Iv 6y ago
That's my reaction as well... What am I missing? People really forgot that you can write a "reactive" website in pure HTML and that's what it was actually designed for?
- _bxg1 6y ago
  This is... not remotely what people mean when they say "reactive". And nobody thinks JS is necessary to get a visual theme that looks nice. CSS and JS frameworks serve radically different purposes.
- fouc 6y ago
  Or did you mean "responsive" ?
  - Iv 6y ago
    Yes, responsive, sorry.
l5870uoo9y 6y ago
It's like normalize.css[1], unify elements across browsers. [1]: https://necolas.github.io/normalize.css/ https://necolas.github.io/normalize.css/
teknopurge 6y ago
hence the bubble.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
"Classless" also made my brow furrow when I realized they didn't mean, say, CSS components styled without a bunch of classes (a la Twitter Bootstrap) but rather, it just has no components. It's classless because it only styles some basic html elements.
- wishinghand 6y ago
  It seems like it styles more than just the basics, as it gets details, kbd, and a few others that I don’t see around as much. Besides this isn’t meant to supplant Bootstrap. It evens says so on the site.
- lucb1e 6y ago
  That's exactly how I understood it and it sounds useful to me. No need to look up what styles do what, you can just use the standard elements and expect them to look coherent and as expected. E.g. "<header>" is descriptive enough since HTML5 introduced it.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    It didn't mean that for me because we've been sharing minimal css files for decades without without calling them frameworks or "classless". Usually when you see a new term, it describes a spin on the old act. If they had also called it a "serverless" CSS framework, I wouldn't have guessed they meant that the CSS file just doesn't make any HTTP requests.
andrethegiant 6y ago
Also my reaction. If anything the response to this shows developers' adverse reaction (or stylistic deference) to CSS in general. IMO CSS is not that hard to grasp, although my bias/expertise might be getting in the way. There are plenty of CS concepts that are much more complex than understanding selector specificity.

Crazy. This isn't a "framework". It's a stylesheet.

by _0o6v 6y ago

Crazy. This isn't a "framework". It's a stylesheet.

m12k 6y ago

Yeah, I think "blog theme" is probably the best it can be described.

Iv 6y ago

That's my reaction as well... What am I missing? People really forgot that you can write a "reactive" website in pure HTML and that's what it was actually designed for?

_bxg1 6y ago
This is... not remotely what people mean when they say "reactive". And nobody thinks JS is necessary to get a visual theme that looks nice. CSS and JS frameworks serve radically different purposes.
fouc 6y ago
Or did you mean "responsive" ?
- Iv 6y ago
  Yes, responsive, sorry.

l5870uoo9y 6y ago

It's like normalize.css[1], unify elements across browsers. [1]: https://necolas.github.io/normalize.css/ https://necolas.github.io/normalize.css/

teknopurge 6y ago

hence the bubble.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

"Classless" also made my brow furrow when I realized they didn't mean, say, CSS components styled without a bunch of classes (a la Twitter Bootstrap) but rather, it just has no components. It's classless because it only styles some basic html elements.

wishinghand 6y ago
It seems like it styles more than just the basics, as it gets details, kbd, and a few others that I don’t see around as much. Besides this isn’t meant to supplant Bootstrap. It evens says so on the site.
lucb1e 6y ago
That's exactly how I understood it and it sounds useful to me. No need to look up what styles do what, you can just use the standard elements and expect them to look coherent and as expected. E.g. "<header>" is descriptive enough since HTML5 introduced it.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  It didn't mean that for me because we've been sharing minimal css files for decades without without calling them frameworks or "classless". Usually when you see a new term, it describes a spin on the old act. If they had also called it a "serverless" CSS framework, I wouldn't have guessed they meant that the CSS file just doesn't make any HTTP requests.

andrethegiant 6y ago

Also my reaction. If anything the response to this shows developers' adverse reaction (or stylistic deference) to CSS in general. IMO CSS is not that hard to grasp, although my bias/expertise might be getting in the way. There are plenty of CS concepts that are much more complex than understanding selector specificity.