4 ms·

Only problem is that no one else supports it.

huggyface 14y ago
You have to start somewhere. The only real question is whether it can be added as a polyfill on browsers as they catch up.
- bratsche 14y ago
  Nobody supports it yet and it's already done better using preprocessors like Sass. Your move, Sherlock.
  - huggyface 14y ago
    I like the part where people get so attached to a tool that they've learned that they reject change. Like your message. Comparing a preprocessor to a native element is asinine. Do you argue against JavaScript features because, given that it's a turing complete language, such things could simply be done with preprocessors? Seriously the boorish comments about "no support yet" are like listening to fat client advocates in the 90s.
    - jontro 14y ago
      Agreed, we are embedding chromium in our desktop apps. Here we can depend fully on the features this particular browser version supports. Cross browser support is not always necessary.
    - bratsche 14y ago
      It's not so much about attachment to current tools. It's just that you look at something like this, with all its cumbersome syntax, and wonder why they had to make it so ridiculous. And it's not like nobody had any decent ideas of how to do a nice, simple, clean syntax for variables. In the end I suppose we'll be able to continue using preprocessors, and maybe they can generate the clumsy native CSS variables, so it won't really matter and we'll get the best of both worlds. But it sure would be nice if they wouldn't create new features that instantly feel cumbersome to use compared to what people have already been using.
TabAtkins 14y ago
Many of the most exciting upcoming features in CSS don't gracefully degrade well. Variables are one, yes, but the same is true of Flexbox or Grid Layout, Regions, and others. One thing that will help (once it's supported, heh) is the @supports rule http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-conditional/#at-supports http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-conditional/#at-supports . (Actually, it'll help even before it's supported, since you can put the "down-level" version outside the rule and then reverse the properties and do the new stuff inside the rule. The inner bits will be completely ignored in old browsers.)

You have to start somewhere. The only real question is whether it can be added as a polyfill on browsers as they catch up.

bratsche 14y ago
Nobody supports it yet and it's already done better using preprocessors like Sass. Your move, Sherlock.
- huggyface 14y ago
  I like the part where people get so attached to a tool that they've learned that they reject change. Like your message. Comparing a preprocessor to a native element is asinine. Do you argue against JavaScript features because, given that it's a turing complete language, such things could simply be done with preprocessors? Seriously the boorish comments about "no support yet" are like listening to fat client advocates in the 90s.
  - jontro 14y ago
    Agreed, we are embedding chromium in our desktop apps. Here we can depend fully on the features this particular browser version supports. Cross browser support is not always necessary.
  - bratsche 14y ago
    It's not so much about attachment to current tools. It's just that you look at something like this, with all its cumbersome syntax, and wonder why they had to make it so ridiculous. And it's not like nobody had any decent ideas of how to do a nice, simple, clean syntax for variables. In the end I suppose we'll be able to continue using preprocessors, and maybe they can generate the clumsy native CSS variables, so it won't really matter and we'll get the best of both worlds. But it sure would be nice if they wouldn't create new features that instantly feel cumbersome to use compared to what people have already been using.

TabAtkins 14y ago

Many of the most exciting upcoming features in CSS don't gracefully degrade well. Variables are one, yes, but the same is true of Flexbox or Grid Layout, Regions, and others. One thing that will help (once it's supported, heh) is the @supports rule http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-conditional/#at-supports http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-conditional/#at-supports . (Actually, it'll help even before it's supported, since you can put the "down-level" version outside the rule and then reverse the properties and do the new stuff inside the rule. The inner bits will be completely ignored in old browsers.)