3 ms·
As great as this kind of thing is - and it's a great step forward for new types of online media - I find it incredibly frustrating that this is where so much de
by STRML 14y ago
As great as this kind of thing is - and it's a great step forward for new types of online media - I find it incredibly frustrating that this is where so much developer time is being spent while basic box models are still broken in CSS.
We now have three flexbox specifications, none of which are supported well enough to use, anywhere. Forgive me if I am not excited about 3d effects when we can't even reliably tell a DIV to expand to available width or height. Most layouts I do these days have to rely on awful hacks like "padding-bottom: 2000px;margin-bottom:-2000px".
- patrickaljord 14y agoThere are already enough people working on the flexbox specification. As a dev, I'm sure you know that adding more people to solve a problem doesn't help at all or as the saying goes: too many cooks spoil the broth. Knowing that, I'm glad to see that some people are working on other interesting areas such as CSS shaders as it wouldn't help putting a thousand devs to work on the flexbox spec anyway.
- STRML 14y agoYou're right, of course. If the original 2009 spec had remained, or been better to begin with, we might have had decent adoption among non-IE and mobile browsers. Instead, we have a 2012 spec that was just put into a CR two weeks ago. In any case, this is the slow march of progress, and it is good to see.