> Does anyone else feel like flexbox syntax is unintuitive? I feel like you could achieve the same thing without rotating axes, and with more consistent naming

> Does anyone else feel like flexbox syntax is unintuitive? I feel like you could achieve the same thing without rotating axes, and with more consistent naming conventions. I also think it is unintuitive. However, I'm pretty sure it was a conscious decision to not leave out non-left-to-right languages. Notice that "flex-direction" depends on "dir" html attribute [1] and/or the "direction" CSS property. Hence, given the same flex definitions, the layout gets "mirrored" when you translate the page to a right-to-left language (such as arabic), which should work better for that language. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_attributes/dir https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_att...