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

CSS-in-JS: The Great Betrayal of Front End Sanity

thenewstack.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: CSS-in-JS: The Great Betrayal of Front End Sanity

#11

Post by azangru »

danabramov wrote: post #3

I’m so tired of reading LLM slop articles. I don’t mind someone using AI assistance but it should be embarrassing to put your name next to something you so obviously didn’t write. I don’t remember who said it but I really like this summary: posting LLM slop as your own writing destroys the reader/writer contract. Normally you’d expect the writer to have spent more effort on a piece than the reader. But now the reader…

The article is certainly shallow, and its title is clickbait, and it says things that will make some web developers roll their eyes, and of course LLMs are now available to anyone — but what makes you think this particular article was written by an LLM? What are the telltale signs?

Re: CSS-in-JS: The Great Betrayal of Front End Sanity

#12

Post by throwaway290 »

azangru wrote: post #10
throwaway290 wrote: post #7

> We’re entering a new chapter where simplicity is sophistication again, where global stylesheets coexist peacefully with scoped rules. does anyone know, scoped style rules are here to stay or not? is deprecated and in HTML spec is not allowed in body https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-st... (This is how I suspect it's LLM slop, it's such an important thing and it just is skipped without mentio…

> does anyone know, scoped style rules are here to stay or not? There is the @scope CSS directive. It is part of the CSS spec now. MDN even says it is supported by all latest browsers. > in HTML spec is not allowed in body Parts of the body can be encapsulated in the shadow DOM; and the shadow DOM allows its own tags.

Thanks. That's a JS-only thing then right?

Re: CSS-in-JS: The Great Betrayal of Front End Sanity

#14

Post by azangru »

throwaway290 wrote: post #12
azangru wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does anyone know, scoped style rules are here to stay or not? There is the @scope CSS directive. It is part of the CSS spec now. MDN even says it is supported by all latest browsers. > in HTML spec is not allowed in body Parts of the body can be encapsulated in the shadow DOM; and the shadow DOM allows its own tags.

Thanks. That's a JS-only thing then right?

The style tag inside of a shadow DOM? No, it can be written declaratively in plain html markup.

Re: CSS-in-JS: The Great Betrayal of Front End Sanity

#16

Post by throwaway290 »

azangru wrote: post #14
throwaway290 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. That's a JS-only thing then right?

The style tag inside of a shadow DOM? No, it can be written declaratively in plain html markup.

if you need JS to actually use shadow dom then this sort of scoped styling is JS only

Re: CSS-in-JS: The Great Betrayal of Front End Sanity

#17

Post by danabramov »

azangru wrote: post #11
danabramov wrote: post #3

I’m so tired of reading LLM slop articles. I don’t mind someone using AI assistance but it should be embarrassing to put your name next to something you so obviously didn’t write. I don’t remember who said it but I really like this summary: posting LLM slop as your own writing destroys the reader/writer contract. Normally you’d expect the writer to have spent more effort on a piece than the reader. But now the reader…

The article is certainly shallow, and its title is clickbait, and it says things that will make some web developers roll their eyes, and of course LLMs are now available to anyone — but what makes you think this particular article was written by an LLM? What are the telltale signs?

It’s more of a vibe, as they say :) Things that cumulatively feel off: overly descriptive headers, overuse of flowery language (“we’re entering a new age where A is B, where X coexist peacefully with Y”). Lots of “isn’t X but Y”, “not X, just Y”. In general the rhythm and the tone is a tell (authoritative and scoldy but vapid and bland at the same time).
Post reply on HN