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

Pure CSS – Lace

diana-adrianne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Pure CSS – Lace

#81

Post by mtarnovan »

ogre_codes wrote: post #73
tonetheman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari is the new IE

People who spout this nonsense don't recall how bad IE was. Comparing the current state of any browser to IE (6-7-8) is utter nonsense. There is a really good center of the road set of web browser features which all modern browsers support. This was not the case when IE was big, in order to make nice, functional web pages you needed to either give up supporting one platform or the other or you needed to spend tons of…

I think you're missing the point. We're not comparing Safari with IE6 -- that would be absurd, we're just saying Safari compares to it's peers (Chrome, Firefox, heck, even Edge) like IE6 used to compare to the other browsers back in the day: stuff would mostly work on everything else but always needed special attention/polyfills/workarounds for IE.

On the project I currently work on the codebase is _littered_ with workarounds and hacks to get stuff to work on Safari.

Re: Pure CSS – Lace

#82

Post by z3t4 »

robin_reala wrote: post #35
danso wrote: post #25

Having been inured to loading 100KB-200KB of boilerplate CSS for a web project, I'm just amazed that the raw CSS for this is 43KB, un-minified: https://github.com/cyanharlow/purecss-lace/blob/master/style...

Developers don’t care about performance, and haven’t for multiple years now. Multi-megabyte JS packages for normal websites are visible across most of the web, and no-one tests on the actual problem devices which are low- to mid-range android phones on slow connections.

Its the buisness side that doesnt care. For my personal buisness i make sure everythig is fast, lightweight, and accessible, works on browsers that has below 0.1% usage, do not track users, nor store personal info. But I do not make any extra money doing it.

Re: Pure CSS – Lace

#85

Post by ogre_codes »

mtarnovan wrote: post #81
ogre_codes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who spout this nonsense don't recall how bad IE was. Comparing the current state of any browser to IE (6-7-8) is utter nonsense. There is a really good center of the road set of web browser features which all modern browsers support. This was not the case when IE was big, in order to make nice, functional web pages you needed to either give up supporting one platform or the other or you needed to spend tons of…

I think you're missing the point. We're not comparing Safari with IE6 -- that would be absurd, we're just saying Safari compares to it's peers (Chrome, Firefox, heck, even Edge) like IE6 used to compare to the other browsers back in the day: stuff would mostly work on everything else but always needed special attention/polyfills/workarounds for IE. On the project I currently work on the codebase is _littered_ with wo…

> we're just saying Safari compares to it's peers (Chrome, Firefox, heck, even Edge) like IE6 used to compare to the other browsers back in the day Again, this is nonsense.

There is a gap, but it's not bending the shape of the web or costing the average developer hundreds of hours to work around bullshit. Safari is behind on some features... no doubt at all. But to compare that to IE 6 is just wrong.

Re: Pure CSS – Lace

#86

Post by miki123211 »

z3t4 wrote: post #82
robin_reala wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers don’t care about performance, and haven’t for multiple years now. Multi-megabyte JS packages for normal websites are visible across most of the web, and no-one tests on the actual problem devices which are low- to mid-range android phones on slow connections.

Its the buisness side that doesnt care. For my personal buisness i make sure everythig is fast, lightweight, and accessible, works on browsers that has below 0.1% usage, do not track users, nor store personal info. But I do not make any extra money doing it.

What business is this? I'm really curious how well you do the accessibility side.

Re: Pure CSS – Lace

#87

Post by dmix »

blowski wrote: post #20
newsbinator wrote: post #10

Not a dig, just found it interesting how this looks in Safari: https://i.imgur.com/z2vHvND.png

She mentions on the GitHub repo that she only coded for Chrome. > Because of the artistic nature of this project I have not concerned myself with cross-browser-compatibility, so the live preview will most likely look laughable in anything other than chrome.

Works fine in Firefox except for the really nice brown iris design. I'm curious why that one part doesn't load (not that curious I would find out myself though :P).

Re: Pure CSS – Lace

#89

Post by chupa-chups »

robin_reala wrote: post #35
danso wrote: post #25

Having been inured to loading 100KB-200KB of boilerplate CSS for a web project, I'm just amazed that the raw CSS for this is 43KB, un-minified: https://github.com/cyanharlow/purecss-lace/blob/master/style...

Developers don’t care about performance, and haven’t for multiple years now. Multi-megabyte JS packages for normal websites are visible across most of the web, and no-one tests on the actual problem devices which are low- to mid-range android phones on slow connections.

As this is indisputable true, who disagrees or doesn't see the value of a statement like this?

Are we so accustomed to having >100mbit bandwidth to not see the problems modern web design is bringing to people in poorer areas of the world?

I suppose that some of the downvoters of that comment upvote comments stating minorities are being discriminated. Ironically the minority is not being discriminated in this case, since most of the people on the internet are on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage#Broadban...).

Post reply on HN