4 ms·
> And CSS-in-JS has worse performance because styles aren't compiled to sytlesheets like they're supposed to be, they're applied at runtime. That depends on th
by jakelazaroff 5y ago
> And CSS-in-JS has worse performance because styles aren't compiled to sytlesheets like they're supposed to be, they're applied at runtime.
That depends on the tool. Libraries like Linaria [1] ("zero-runtime" CSS-in-JS) do generate CSS files.
[1] https://linaria.dev https://linaria.dev
- have_faith 5y agoZero runtime css-in-js feels like the natural progression. It combines the best of both worlds and is very flexible, bring your own design system instead of relying on your css implementation to decide on one for you ala tailwind.
- toastercat 5y agoI explored this a long time ago, but after a while, I was like "what's the point" and just went back to CSS Modules. I'll just write more classes and have a separate file in my directory if it means not adding even more shit that can break in my project.
- steve_adams_86 5y agoI liked linaria at first, but it has been a huge headache and my team is eager to get away from it now. A lot of helpful strategies like lazy loading components and inlining critical CSS are incompatible with linaria and cause very strange breakage due to changing precedence as components are loaded. It's an awesome library when it works with what you need, but it's been a compatibility nightmare for us. So many popular tools in the JS ecosystem are a headache to get working with it.