3 ms·
Incompetence, and thus obedience to a mistakenly-generalised caricature of "good practice", is my guess. I used to use em everywhere for exactly this reason. (T
by wizzwizz4 3y ago
Incompetence, and thus obedience to a mistakenly-generalised caricature of "good practice", is my guess. I used to use em everywhere for exactly this reason. (The only reason I didn't shift to "rem everywhere", "flexbox everywhere", "web fonts everywhere", etc. was obedience to some different caricature of "good practice".)
I've never seen a CSS framework that's good. (Unless you count https://simplecss.org/ https://simplecss.org/, but that's of very narrow usefulness.) They're all made by the kinds of people who don't understand web technologies, and seek to hide them behind a layer of abstraction so they don't have to think about them any more. Unfortunately for them, there's a reason the web's how it is. Some of it's backwards-compatibility, but most of it is that a large group of very clever people failed to find a way to make it any simpler without breaking something important; and so, the framework people tend to break important things.
If you find yourself reaching for something like Tailwind or Bootstrap, just use inline style attributes. It's easier for everyone involved.
- afiori 3y agoGood luck using pseudoclasses, pseudoelements or media queries in inline styles. Wrt Tailwind I still have not used it enough to decide whether it is good™ but it is not that different from writing inline styles. Apart from optional plugins it is more like a CSS preprocessor than a framework (every class expands to one or few CSS declaration) The most frameworky features it has is that it predefines CSS variables to allow further customization
- wizzwizz4 3y agoIf you need any of those things, you should be using a proper stylesheet. Use <style scoped='scoped'> in the <body>, if you really must. A crude "not that different from writing inline styles" classy framework just makes it harder to refactor your CSS in future, because it's all tucked away under incomprehensibly-named CSS classes, and there are otherwise-useless <div>s all through the HTML.
- afiori 3y agoI should clarify that I primarily touch html via React, so the unit of reusability is not CSS but rather components. For handwritten html I believe that tailwind has significant downsides (unless you abuse @apply), but that the case I focus on. I should have mentioned that I believe tailwind to be applicable only if you have some strong templating support > Use <style scoped='scoped'> in the <body> This seems to have been removed from everywhere since at least 2017
- pwdisswordfishc 3y agoJoke's on you: I avoid inline CSS like the plague whenever I can. Which is to say, I use it as intended.
- afiori 3y agoThis does not suprise me, inline CSS is very unwieldy