5 ms·
I suspect if you're OK at CSS and great at JS, this would have some appeal. Conversely, if you're great with CSS and OK at JS, this will not. It doesn't help t
by wmeredith 12y ago
I suspect if you're OK at CSS and great at JS, this would have some appeal. Conversely, if you're great with CSS and OK at JS, this will not.
It doesn't help that in most of the examples the Javascript implementation is more complex than the css implementation.
- talmand 12y agoIf you are bad at CSS and good at JS then this tool will not really help you. In the end it generates CSS, which you have to know to some degree to be able to create the JS version of it. I agree on the complexity issue with the examples, I don't see how the 30% savings claim would hold up.
- oleg009 12y agosaving come from 1. code reuse. less/stylus will generate everything dozens of times 2. vendor prefixes are added effectively at runtime
- talmand 12y agoCSS allows for code reuse, it always has. It's called cascading and classes. Preprocessors will generate bloated CSS if not coded properly, same as it's possible to hand-code bloated CSS. There are libraries that generate vendor prefixes at run time. If prefixes are really a bother (they're not as much anymore) then preprocessors and other compiling tools have solutions for that as well. Which will be more efficient for the browser.
- oleg009 12y ago1. Stop assuming I am stupid. 2. I know code reuse technics in css, they are mentioned in the presentation. Cascades do not work for component based development. Adding multiple classes to an element leads to awkward code and also will lead to namespace conflicts if you don't name everything very specifically. 3. Vendor prefixes are there and will be used for new features too. They will not go away. Precompilers can't avoid generating all prefixed variants.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]