5 ms·

As spion says with web components on the horizon, and with current frameworks like React, having classnames live in the global namespace makes creating reusable

As spion says with web components on the horizon, and with current frameworks like React, having classnames live in the global namespace makes creating reusable components that don't clash with other components impossible. I have a hunch some consensus will evolve that will use Java/AS3 namespace prefixes to enable sharing, so instead of .button you'll have something like .com-github-dougmartin-button.

talmand 12y ago
Or even better, namespace the classes with nesting; which you can today with or without a prepocessor. Such verbose classnames is not necessary.
- spion 12y ago
  Yes, namespacing is the best currently available option. Unfortunately its only an approximation of lexical scope, as the example in the presentation shows (the one with the two red buttons). True, this is not something that happens often, and we can mostly get away with namespaces. But that's not the point. The point is that lexical scope is a tried and proven (by years of research, in multiple languages) solution to this problem which doesn't have any of these quirks. And JS has lexical scope.
  - talmand 12y ago
    The example with the two buttons is inherently flawed and is a bad example. It specifically creates an easily preventable problem in an effort to show a solution to that problem. There is nothing that this library can do that I cannot hand-code in CSS myself. Because it has to generate the CSS that the browser expects to get, which is not hard to do.
- spion 12y ago
  Yes, namespacing is the best currently available option. Unfortunately its only an approximation of lexical scope, as the example in the presentation shows (the one with the two red buttons). True, this is not something that happens often, and we can mostly get away with namespaces. But that's not the point. The point is that lexical scope is a tried and proven (by years of research, in multiple languages) solution to this problem which doesn't have any of these quirks. And JS has lexical scope.
- spion 12y ago
  Yes, namespacing is the best currently available option. Unfortunately its only an approximation of lexical scope, as the example in the presentation shows (the one with the two red buttons). True, this is not something that happens often, and we can mostly get away with namespaces. But that's not the point. The point is that lexical scope is a tried and proven (by years of research, in multiple languages) solution to this problem which doesn't have any of these quirks. And JS has lexical scope.

talmand 12y ago

Or even better, namespace the classes with nesting; which you can today with or without a prepocessor. Such verbose classnames is not necessary.

spion 12y ago
Yes, namespacing is the best currently available option. Unfortunately its only an approximation of lexical scope, as the example in the presentation shows (the one with the two red buttons). True, this is not something that happens often, and we can mostly get away with namespaces. But that's not the point. The point is that lexical scope is a tried and proven (by years of research, in multiple languages) solution to this problem which doesn't have any of these quirks. And JS has lexical scope.
- talmand 12y ago
  The example with the two buttons is inherently flawed and is a bad example. It specifically creates an easily preventable problem in an effort to show a solution to that problem. There is nothing that this library can do that I cannot hand-code in CSS myself. Because it has to generate the CSS that the browser expects to get, which is not hard to do.
spion 12y ago
Yes, namespacing is the best currently available option. Unfortunately its only an approximation of lexical scope, as the example in the presentation shows (the one with the two red buttons). True, this is not something that happens often, and we can mostly get away with namespaces. But that's not the point. The point is that lexical scope is a tried and proven (by years of research, in multiple languages) solution to this problem which doesn't have any of these quirks. And JS has lexical scope.
spion 12y ago
Yes, namespacing is the best currently available option. Unfortunately its only an approximation of lexical scope, as the example in the presentation shows (the one with the two red buttons). True, this is not something that happens often, and we can mostly get away with namespaces. But that's not the point. The point is that lexical scope is a tried and proven (by years of research, in multiple languages) solution to this problem which doesn't have any of these quirks. And JS has lexical scope.