Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Universal.css

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Universal.css

#111

Post by mieko »

silverbax88 wrote: post #85
djsumdog wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use Foundation + sass processor and not need any of that garbage. My website just has nav, main, sidebar, etc. I define what I want into foundation to be mapped to them and the preprocessor creates my minified CSS. http://penguindreams.org/blog/jekyll-3-and-foundation-6/ Adding "row-xx" or whatever to your HTML elements is basically going back to the garbage that was in table based html layouts.

I really don't know how to take your comment...are you suggesting that precompiling and overriding the functionality native to CSS is easier than just using a handful of classnames?

They're suggesting that Bootstrap-like classes that name and reference a specific visual rendering (e.g., col-md-hidden) are no better than the old ROWSPAN/COLSPAN mess. They've just moved from HTML attributes to being packed into the class attribute.

Then again, semantic markup was a huge pain in the ass before tools like SASS. Now you can actually name and categorize elements semantically in the markup, then decide what that actually means in the pre-processed CSS.

Edit: And it's true: Having recently gone through even a simple bootstrap-to-bootstrap redesign, we pretty much had to comb through every view and remove/replace non-semantic CSS classes. With SASS mixins and semantic markup, it'd have been a CSS-only change.

Re: Universal.css

#112

Post by mieko »

SquareWheel wrote: post #94
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.

> If you add a .bold class to an element, why would you want it to sometimes not be bold?

The problem is having a class called .bold, and then baking it into your HTML. I feel like many people arguing this have never undertaken a full-scale visual redesign on a large site. The designer comes in, and all the sudden everything marked .bold ends up meaning "lightweight italicized text". This presentational/semantic cycle repeats every 6 years or so, but I'm not sure where it's heading.

Re: Universal.css

#113

Post by cel1ne »

kemayo wrote: post #63
akavi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that still true? I recently joined a company whose primary audience is education, and our numbers say that less than 1% of our customers use browsers that don't support flexbox. Are public middle schools farther along the tech curve than "enterprise"? (Legitimately curious. It'd be pretty funny if so.)

The sticking point for enterprise-y things remains IE, since it only supports flexbox (buggily) as of IE11. Though there's polyfills like flexibility out there, of course.

Didn't MS announce to only keep supporting the latest IE/Edge version? This should help in that class.

Re: Universal.css

#114

Post by cel1ne »

akavi wrote: post #51
cel1ne wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used and am using this in production. So are others. It works really really well. Here's the rational: http://mrmrs.io/writing/2016/03/24/scalable-css/

These are valid issues, but one that has a better, actually scalable solution: CSS preprocessors. You can name your magic numbers/RGB values. You can move your shared behaviour into mixins. You can stop using float for god's sake - it's 2016, we have flexbox now (OK, so that's not related to preprocessors, but it's still true). Sure, if it's a quick hack or something you're throwing together for personal reasons, use…

I used css-preprocessors (LESS, SASS and various postcss-configurations), but now I'm glad to not have another layer of imports and logic in CSS. Especially in react-driven pages.

I wonder, though, if there could be some workflow where you write and edit with tachyons, (babel-) analyze the code, find commonly used combination and prompt to name them.

EDIT: I also usually work with only two or three people, I guess it's different if there are 20 working on the css.

But especially in teams: don't you consider it extremely valuable that one can change the style of exactly one part somewhere in the page without affecting anything else?

Re: Universal.css

#115

Post by Loque »

SquareWheel wrote: post #94
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.

Why bother with class 'bold' when you could use inline styles? (I jest)

I come from an older thinking that your HTML should not have any classes that imply visual style, and that classes/id's should be semantic to the content and structure of the HTML.

CSSZen garden is a good example of this.

Nowadays I personally love semantic markup, stylistic mixins, and a CSS file linking the two together following BEM patterns.

I think legitimate times when this falls apart, is when I watch the designers I work with now, work in HTML & CSS - they need to quickly move things around, so doing this all from markup gives them a big speed increase, up until a point that is. We get involved now early after initial client direction sign-off to make their markup and CSS more robust before they carry on like a pig in poo.

Re: Universal.css

#116

Post by leray_J »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #84
leray_J wrote: post #81

I'm getting scared to see that on front page, I'm the kind of guy which could have enough luck to randomly fall into a project where someone used it for real.

"Dude, I just found the coolest CSS framework, take a look. This is going to solve ALL of our problems!" I've had this happen a few times with other developers I thought were pretty sharp. The best example is when someone found Dogescript ( https://dogescript.com/ ) and was convinced it was the next big thing. The best part was I didn't have the heart to tell him the truth.

Are you kidding me?!

How can someone take Dogescript seriously?! That is so retarded, even a guy witch is not into programmation and hang out on 9gag sometimes can tell it's a troll!:O

Re: Universal.css

#117

Post by Randgalt »

hawleyal wrote: post #72
Randgalt wrote: post #22

The real joke is how screwed up client side programming is. Here's a library that's an insider/hipster joke but it's only obviously a joke to hipster/insiders.

Blah blah blah doesn't like JavaScript

Javascript is fine. It's the fact that the ecosystem changes every few months and devs post things like "look how ridiculous this old way of doing things is" when the old way was just last year (or 6 months ago) when _it_ was the new hotness.
Post reply on HN