Universal.css • Hacker News Board

Re: Universal.css

#91

Post by kowdermeister » Mon, May 23, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

kalkin wrote: post #74

I pretty much completely disagree with the implicit critique here. The codebase I work on now has largely transitioned from "semantic" CSS (classnames based on feature) to CSS with classnames that describe what they do , visually, and the latter has made writing frontend code dramatically more straightforward - it's gone from something I dread and try to pass off to a specialist to something I can do easily. A night-…

I'm with you. I'm not sure why semantic purists need to spread the idea that utility classes are bad. 1 class name for every property is stupid of course, but layout classes (yes, used with semantic HTML elements) are a great help if used with discipline.

After all, who are we writing code for? - The end user? He can't care less about the class names. - Search engines? They can surely identify relevant content. Semantic classes help, but they don't rule out utilities. - Ourselves? I can read utility/semantic classes well especially that I've written. Also not a case against utilities.

Re: Universal.css

#92

Post by odonnellryan » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

ryannevius wrote: post #11

This reminds me of Tachyons[1], except Tachyons (supposedly) isn't satire. [1] http://tachyons.io/

Reminds me of React! ;)

Not trolling, I think React is a fine framework.

Re: Universal.css

#93

Post by YngwieMalware » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

I was almost offended until I realized it was too absurd to be real. Really happy this is a joke, holy crap.

Re: Universal.css

#94

Post by SquareWheel » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:07 PM UTC

Loque wrote: post #88

I am really glad someone has put this together - I was enjoying Harry Roberts talk at RenderConf until he dropped this in our faces: http://csswizardry.com/2016/05/the-importance-of-important/ Utility classes I dislike (mixins plx) and the idea of using important with them is not a design decision I would want to pick up. I guess my bigger problem is that Harry sells himself as an expert, stands up on stage telling p…

I read that post earlier and it seemed fine. If you add a .bold class to an element, why would you want it to sometimes not be bold?

Utility classes don't belong everywhere but I think it's going a bit far to discredit the man for proposing this. His work on ITCSS in particular shows he's well versed in the language. I find this system far more sane than other proposals.

Re: Universal.css

#95

Post by cloudjacker » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

> Of course it's a joke.

whew, had me going there

Re: Universal.css

#96

Post by binthere » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:45 PM UTC

marchelzo wrote: post #75

binthere wrote: post #73

People who don't understand the concept of atomic CSS usually joke about it, but has no idea about the benefits. The new Twitter mobile site is fast as hell and use this concept. Semantic class names makes no sense when you think about it.

I'm not familiar with this concept. What are the benefits?

http://acss.io/frequently-asked-questions.html

Re: Universal.css

#97

Post by blwsk » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #89

dclowd9901 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, in SMACSS, you could classify all components into their composable parts: a grid width, a title style, a button with a primary style, a button with a secondary style, standard body text, emphasized body text, etc. But most of the time, designers don't know how to stick with a standardized padding and margin, so I find that without exception, an org requires me to develop "cryptic" representations of margin a…

This is weird, because designers I've worked with hate CSS bloat even more than I do, and love things like consistent spacing and typography. The movement towards styleguides has been one of the biggest things happening in design in the last year or so, which is exactly what you're talking about with not writing CSS.

To add to this, the addition of a style guide is helpful on two fronts.

* Components and patterns are standardized, allowing for less process in design reviews and quicker iteration

* Engineers can create component libraries that mirror style guide elements and turn frontend work into something a little closer to 'lego' building

Re: Universal.css

#98

Post by eridius » Mon, May 23, 2016, 6:02 PM UTC

mrgreenfur wrote: post #69

Poes law meets css: "Poe's law is an Internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme views will be mistaken by some readers or viewers for sincere expressions of the parodied views.[1][2][3] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

I'd agree, except for the fact that the very end of the FAQ says

> Is this a joke?

> Of course it's a joke. Use semantic CSS class names.

Re: Universal.css

#99

Post by mendelk » Mon, May 23, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

I know this is meant as a joke, but having used BassCSS[0] in a production webapp, I believe it really is a valid approach to CSS.

To each their own, I guess.

[0] http://www.basscss.com/

Re: Universal.css

#100

Post by drivingmenuts » Mon, May 23, 2016, 6:42 PM UTC

Can someone kindly explain how I'm supposed to feel about this? I'm on mobile ATM and my feelings are somewhat restrained by available processing power.