339 Bytes of Responsive CSS • Hacker News Board

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#21

Post by arkokoley » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 9:52 AM UTC

ChrisGranger wrote: post #2

You can save three more bytes by making the background color #eee. ^^

339 was a more interesting number than 336. I like odd numbers. I'm odd.

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#22

Post by vladocar » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 9:53 AM UTC

Here is something similar: https://github.com/vladocar/Basic-CSS-Typography-Reset

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#23

Post by arkokoley » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 9:56 AM UTC

smoyer wrote: post #11

onion2k wrote: post #5

It's ironic that the author chose to use a page that loads 1.5Mb of data, including 12 separate stylesheets, to write about a minimal stylesheet.

Yep ... the first thing I did was to see if he was "eating his own dog-food". As an aside, I'd recommend against putting the linked site on a projector at work (or at least look at it first to determine whether it fits your organization's culture).

> I'd recommend against putting the linked site on a projector at work

Is it because of the linked site?

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#24

Post by xvector » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 9:56 AM UTC

fastbeef wrote: post #9

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #4

A nonoffensive version of "better motherfucking website"?

Ughn, I really thought that this rah-rah pseudo-masculine tough guy aesthetic was something we've collectively moved on from?

it's obvious satire and a lighthearted joke with a kernel of truth. chill :)

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#25

Post by new_here » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 9:57 AM UTC

All this CSS minimalism reminds me of Dan Luu's post about Web Bloat: https://danluu.com/web-bloat/

His website is refreshingly light and fast, but that's still no excuse for Times New Roman. Maybe it's a retro irreverence thing.

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#26

Post by boomlinde » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 9:57 AM UTC

339 bytes which load an additional 241 bytes of CSS to load a 53k custom font...

What is the point people are trying to make with titles like this? It's like claiming "50 bytes to make a website" after you figure out that you can just iframe Google.

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#27

Post by purerandomness » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 9:58 AM UTC

arkokoley wrote: post #23

smoyer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep ... the first thing I did was to see if he was "eating his own dog-food". As an aside, I'd recommend against putting the linked site on a projector at work (or at least look at it first to determine whether it fits your organization's culture).

> I'd recommend against putting the linked site on a projector at work Is it because of the linked site?

It's because of the linked example in OP's link: https://blog.koley.in/baserock/

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#28

Post by maccard » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 9:59 AM UTC

arkokoley wrote: post #23

smoyer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep ... the first thing I did was to see if he was "eating his own dog-food". As an aside, I'd recommend against putting the linked site on a projector at work (or at least look at it first to determine whether it fits your organization's culture).

> I'd recommend against putting the linked site on a projector at work Is it because of the linked site?

Yes, definitely. He's talking about [0]. It's really unprofessional (which is a pity because it's impressive!)

[0] - https://blog.koley.in/baserock/

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#29

Post by arkokoley » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 10:01 AM UTC

arkokoley wrote: post #23

smoyer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep ... the first thing I did was to see if he was "eating his own dog-food". As an aside, I'd recommend against putting the linked site on a projector at work (or at least look at it first to determine whether it fits your organization's culture).

> I'd recommend against putting the linked site on a projector at work Is it because of the linked site?

@purerandomnesss OP here. Copied that from http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

I think, I should probably change the text.

Re: 339 Bytes of Responsive CSS

#30

Post by orwin » Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 10:02 AM UTC

fastbeef wrote: post #9

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #4

A nonoffensive version of "better motherfucking website"?

Ughn, I really thought that this rah-rah pseudo-masculine tough guy aesthetic was something we've collectively moved on from?

i still have not. "pseudo-masculine tough guy" aesthetic are efficient, especially for learning/reading space (80% of my time spent on the net). It does not have to be as ugly as "better fing website", but still.