3 ms·
Is it really "needlessly" complex if this is enabling styling that wasn't possible before? Re your second point that CSS might become a compilation target for
by arrow7000 4y ago
Is it really "needlessly" complex if this is enabling styling that wasn't possible before?
Re your second point that CSS might become a compilation target for styling... have you never heard of Sass, Less, Tailwind, or any of a million UI frameworks that provide alternative ways to write CSS, or even avoid writing it directly altogether? This isn't exactly new.
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago> Is it really "needlessly" complex if this is enabling styling that wasn't possible before? Many newer features that have been added over the years don't actually enable anything new. Not that I'm arguing in favour of table-based layouts either. > have you never heard of Sass, Less, Tailwind, or any of a million UI frameworks that provide alternative ways to write CSS, or even avoid writing it directly altogether? This isn't exactly new. I have written CSS in a serious capacity for several years. I am more than familiar with Sass, Less, etc., which is exactly why I wrote "languages that aren't just supersets of the status quo".
- arrow7000 4y agoHow do you propose we get to such a language that is more than a superset of the status quo if CSS, the compilation target itself, is severely limited?
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago…That's the entire point of abstraction. I'm guessing you aren't writing binary in your day to day work, are you? I'm fairly certain whichever language you're working with is more featureful and ergonomic than working directly in binary. Similarly, Elm has a different surface area from JavaScript, and yet JavaScript is the compilation target. CSS doesn't need to be featureful to be a compilation target.