3 ms·

And then you discover semantic classes for styling elements, eg `.amazing_h1.with_padding` and use nested selectors for layout like `.blog_post > h1` or maybe e

by dsego 6y ago

And then you discover semantic classes for styling elements, eg `.amazing_h1.with_padding` and use nested selectors for layout like `.blog_post > h1` or maybe even utility classes `.amazing_h1.with_padding.centered'.

kerkeslager 6y ago
If you're doing class='centered' or class='with_padding', I don't see any reason not to just do style='align-self:center;' or style='padding: 1rem;' instead. The class names communicate less (Is that centering the content of the element, or the element itself? Is that vertical or horizontal centering, or both? Is the text being centered?). And it doesn't allow you to make sitewide changes like a semantic class does (You might want to change all .blog-title elements from centered to left-aligned, but do you really want to change all .centered elements from centered to left-aligned?). I'd go so far as to say this is an antipattern.
- metalforever 6y ago
  This mixing of concerns was garbage and still is garbage, regardless of whether its popular now.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    To be clear: putting `class='centered'` in your HTML is absolutely mixing concerns. That's exactly the problem I'm pointing out.
- dsego 6y ago
  Typically you have a design system that keeps things consistent. So you would have maybe 5-6 different padding sizes, eg padding-s, padding-xl or whatever. That's why you don't just do style='padding: 1rem;'. Instead you assign a predefined padding class that's defined by your design system. As for me using .centered, it was just a quick example, and you took it in bad faith and now are nitpicking minor details. Sitewide changes are a trade-off, if you make one easy (adjusting one parameter for a class of elements) you make others more difficult. Like, what if you need to change only some blog-title elements from centered to left-aligned in your system, do you create blog-title-left-aligned? I don't think the problem you pose is any more relevant than any other possible arrangement of html/css changes.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    > Typically you have a design system that keeps things consistent. So you would have maybe 5-6 different padding sizes, eg padding-s, padding-xl or whatever. That's why you don't just do style='padding: 1rem;'. Well, I'm not saying you should do style='padding: 1rem;', I'm saying that padding-s has all the downsides of mixing styles into your markup, with none of the clarity of just using inline CSS. The solution isn't to use inline CSS, it's to use semantic class names. I can see the convenience of naming your padding sizes for consistency: that's what SASS inheritance does. > As for me using .centered, it was just a quick example, and you took it in bad faith and now are nitpicking minor details. 1. Cool it. Nobody is attacking you, you don't need to attack me. We're discussing ideas, not each others' faith. 2. I've encountered this antipattern in production code, so regardless of whether you were actually proposing it as a serious idea, some people do take this idea seriously, so it needs to be addressed. The problems I pointed out aren't theoretical: I've dealt with them in practice.
    - dsego 6y ago
      > I'm saying that padding-s has all the downsides of mixing styles into your markup, with none of the clarity of just using inline CSS. I don't think it does, it's semantic with respect to your design system, not your content. The use of utility classes is to avoid the proliferation of "header-foo", "header-foo-large-padding", "button-foo", "button-foo-large-padding" or even worse usage of overly specific selectors, relying on element position, eg .main-content > header-foo { padding: 1rem } etc . Instead, you can just "header-foo.p3", "button-foo.p3". > 1. Cool it. Nobody is attacking you, you don't need to attack me. Sorry, not a native speaker, it didn't sound like an attack in my mind. With argument in bad faith I meant fixating on the simplified .centered example instead of discussing the general idea of design systems and utility classes. I guess cause I got flagged I need to "cool it". > I've encountered this antipattern in production code, so regardless of whether you were actually proposing it as a serious idea, some people do take this idea seriously, so it needs to be addressed. The problems I pointed out aren't theoretical: I've dealt with them in practice. I don't understand this argument. A lot of major css libs and frameworks use utility classes. I'm sure they deal with production code and practice all the time. I know I do. This comment I take as very dismissive.
- Evansbee 6y ago
  Disagree. This is utility classing and you can target pseudo elements and deal with responsiveness. Tailwind is pretty popular and uses this methodology.

by dsego 6y ago

kerkeslager 6y ago

If you're doing class='centered' or class='with_padding', I don't see any reason not to just do style='align-self:center;' or style='padding: 1rem;' instead. The class names communicate less (Is that centering the content of the element, or the element itself? Is that vertical or horizontal centering, or both? Is the text being centered?). And it doesn't allow you to make sitewide changes like a semantic class does (You might want to change all .blog-title elements from centered to left-aligned, but do you really want to change all .centered elements from centered to left-aligned?). I'd go so far as to say this is an antipattern.

metalforever 6y ago
This mixing of concerns was garbage and still is garbage, regardless of whether its popular now.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  To be clear: putting `class='centered'` in your HTML is absolutely mixing concerns. That's exactly the problem I'm pointing out.
dsego 6y ago
Typically you have a design system that keeps things consistent. So you would have maybe 5-6 different padding sizes, eg padding-s, padding-xl or whatever. That's why you don't just do style='padding: 1rem;'. Instead you assign a predefined padding class that's defined by your design system. As for me using .centered, it was just a quick example, and you took it in bad faith and now are nitpicking minor details. Sitewide changes are a trade-off, if you make one easy (adjusting one parameter for a class of elements) you make others more difficult. Like, what if you need to change only some blog-title elements from centered to left-aligned in your system, do you create blog-title-left-aligned? I don't think the problem you pose is any more relevant than any other possible arrangement of html/css changes.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > Typically you have a design system that keeps things consistent. So you would have maybe 5-6 different padding sizes, eg padding-s, padding-xl or whatever. That's why you don't just do style='padding: 1rem;'. Well, I'm not saying you should do style='padding: 1rem;', I'm saying that padding-s has all the downsides of mixing styles into your markup, with none of the clarity of just using inline CSS. The solution isn't to use inline CSS, it's to use semantic class names. I can see the convenience of naming your padding sizes for consistency: that's what SASS inheritance does. > As for me using .centered, it was just a quick example, and you took it in bad faith and now are nitpicking minor details. 1. Cool it. Nobody is attacking you, you don't need to attack me. We're discussing ideas, not each others' faith. 2. I've encountered this antipattern in production code, so regardless of whether you were actually proposing it as a serious idea, some people do take this idea seriously, so it needs to be addressed. The problems I pointed out aren't theoretical: I've dealt with them in practice.
  - dsego 6y ago
    > I'm saying that padding-s has all the downsides of mixing styles into your markup, with none of the clarity of just using inline CSS. I don't think it does, it's semantic with respect to your design system, not your content. The use of utility classes is to avoid the proliferation of "header-foo", "header-foo-large-padding", "button-foo", "button-foo-large-padding" or even worse usage of overly specific selectors, relying on element position, eg .main-content > header-foo { padding: 1rem } etc . Instead, you can just "header-foo.p3", "button-foo.p3". > 1. Cool it. Nobody is attacking you, you don't need to attack me. Sorry, not a native speaker, it didn't sound like an attack in my mind. With argument in bad faith I meant fixating on the simplified .centered example instead of discussing the general idea of design systems and utility classes. I guess cause I got flagged I need to "cool it". > I've encountered this antipattern in production code, so regardless of whether you were actually proposing it as a serious idea, some people do take this idea seriously, so it needs to be addressed. The problems I pointed out aren't theoretical: I've dealt with them in practice. I don't understand this argument. A lot of major css libs and frameworks use utility classes. I'm sure they deal with production code and practice all the time. I know I do. This comment I take as very dismissive.
Evansbee 6y ago
Disagree. This is utility classing and you can target pseudo elements and deal with responsiveness. Tailwind is pretty popular and uses this methodology.