3 ms·

This sounds crazy to me, the flex system is exactly this but also semantically correct. You can’t possibly be telling me that table hacks of yore are easier tha

This sounds crazy to me, the flex system is exactly this but also semantically correct. You can’t possibly be telling me that table hacks of yore are easier than this, a clearly designed system for the actual problem you want to solve https://css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/css-flexbox-poster.png https://css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/css-flexbo... I’m not at all a frontend person, I just think flex is one of the best systems I have ever used. It usually gets the job done in a way that I expected to work (and that bar is pretty low lol)

benoau 1y ago
Flex is great but tables are also a natural solution for anything grid-based, which of course layouts almost always are. The whole internet used to do stuff like this before the structural flow of content became important: <table width="100%" height="100%"> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="50"> header </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="200" valign="top"> sidebar </td> <td valign="middle"> content </td> </tr> </table>
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- icedchai 1y ago
  Bring back the 90's. ;) The memories of spacer gifs...
  - benoau 1y ago
    I still find myself missing Macromedia Fireworks on occasion!
- Izkata 1y ago
  GP is also wrong anyway, CSS Flex is the wrong thing for creating layouts like this. We now have CSS Grid, which is the actual replacement for table-based layouts (which were used more recently than people like to admit because of Flex not working for two-dimensional layouts).
  - corytheboyd 1y ago
    Sorry, I often conflate flex and grid, they occupy the same spot in my mind as “1 dimensional” and “2 dimensional” versions of the same underlying thing. I am wrong.
n4te 1y ago
No, tables are the right solution: nonoverlapping elements arranged in a sane way that is easy to reason about. The arguments about semantics so everything can be a div are hilarious -- it really doesn't matter.

benoau 1y ago

Flex is great but tables are also a natural solution for anything grid-based, which of course layouts almost always are. The whole internet used to do stuff like this before the structural flow of content became important: <table width="100%" height="100%"> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="50"> header </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="200" valign="top"> sidebar </td> <td valign="middle"> content </td> </tr> </table>

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
icedchai 1y ago
Bring back the 90's. ;) The memories of spacer gifs...
- benoau 1y ago
  I still find myself missing Macromedia Fireworks on occasion!
Izkata 1y ago
GP is also wrong anyway, CSS Flex is the wrong thing for creating layouts like this. We now have CSS Grid, which is the actual replacement for table-based layouts (which were used more recently than people like to admit because of Flex not working for two-dimensional layouts).
- corytheboyd 1y ago
  Sorry, I often conflate flex and grid, they occupy the same spot in my mind as “1 dimensional” and “2 dimensional” versions of the same underlying thing. I am wrong.

n4te 1y ago

No, tables are the right solution: nonoverlapping elements arranged in a sane way that is easy to reason about. The arguments about semantics so everything can be a div are hilarious -- it really doesn't matter.