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

Writing CSS Algorithms

notlaura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Writing CSS Algorithms

#31

Post by 52-6F-62 »

ferros wrote: post #15

Why does sass have to be ‘compiled’ in 2019? It’s not like some heavy duty compilation is being performed. It should be as standard and supported as css.

No comment on the core question, but:

When I do have to do any web gui work, I'm starting to lean toward Parcel because I can import SCSS/SASS, Less, or CSS right into the javascript/typescript file, and it will spit out web-usable CSS without configuration. Of course this only helps if you're including JS anyway. I don't know enough about the system to know if you can configure for just SASS. But that just returns to your problem, anyway.

Re: Writing CSS Algorithms

#32

Post by dahart »

pault wrote: post #6

Algorithm? I see a design process but using the word algorithm to describe a CSS layout is a bit baffling to me. It's like creating a library of json snippets and calling it a json algorithm.

I’d agree using the word ‘algorithm’ feels a little misleading from the point of view of a programmer. But just to defend the glass half full point of view: it does feel reasonable to call the design processes in the article “recipes”, and once something is a “recipe”, “algorithm” feels more synonymous. Maybe the way to look at this article is that “algorithm” refers to what the person is doing, not to what the CSS is doing.

Re: Writing CSS Algorithms

#33

Post by parthdesai »

pault wrote: post #6

Algorithm? I see a design process but using the word algorithm to describe a CSS layout is a bit baffling to me. It's like creating a library of json snippets and calling it a json algorithm.

Yeah, i personally thought this post would be about actually designing algorithms that determine where the HTML elements are rendered on the screen.

Re: Writing CSS Algorithms

#34

Post by tobr »

dahart wrote: post #32
pault wrote: post #6

Algorithm? I see a design process but using the word algorithm to describe a CSS layout is a bit baffling to me. It's like creating a library of json snippets and calling it a json algorithm.

I’d agree using the word ‘algorithm’ feels a little misleading from the point of view of a programmer. But just to defend the glass half full point of view: it does feel reasonable to call the design processes in the article “recipes”, and once something is a “recipe”, “algorithm” feels more synonymous. Maybe the way to look at this article is that “algorithm” refers to what the person is doing, not to what the CSS i…

That’s not really what the article is saying, as far as I can tell. It describes the process for writing a CSS algorithm, not an algorithm for writing CSS. So in this use, the algorithm is something the CSS is doing, not the person.

I think the issue is that an algorithm is typically an unambiguously defined, imperative solution to a problem. It involves step by step instructions that happen in a certain order. Even though you can argue that these CSS patterns are clearly defined solutions to specific problems, the fact that there are no steps involved, no procedure, nothing imperative, makes it odd to call it an algorithm. There are other established words to use, like pattern, utility, hack.

There’s added confusion since CSS obviously involves actual algorithms, like how the engine calculates selector matching, specificity, layout, filters, etc.

Re: Writing CSS Algorithms

#35

Post by dahart »

tobr wrote: post #34
dahart wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d agree using the word ‘algorithm’ feels a little misleading from the point of view of a programmer. But just to defend the glass half full point of view: it does feel reasonable to call the design processes in the article “recipes”, and once something is a “recipe”, “algorithm” feels more synonymous. Maybe the way to look at this article is that “algorithm” refers to what the person is doing, not to what the CSS i…

That’s not really what the article is saying, as far as I can tell. It describes the process for writing a CSS algorithm, not an algorithm for writing CSS. So in this use, the algorithm is something the CSS is doing, not the person. I think the issue is that an algorithm is typically an unambiguously defined, imperative solution to a problem. It involves step by step instructions that happen in a certain order. Even…

I hear you and I think you're making a reasonable point, but just for fun, I'll double down on the devil's advocate defense.

I still think it's fair to include the person's activity in the broader idea of what constitutes an "algorithm" here, and I believe the article's language does support my interpretation.

First, the author explicitly acknowledges that "algorithm" is being somewhat misused compared to it's conventional programmer usage, and gives a bunch of reasons why she thinks it's still "useful" to co-opt this word. Some of the point behind this article is precisely to explain and defend her use of the world "algorithm" in this context. Language is fluid, and that's okay & sometimes fun & useful & interesting, right?

Also, there are steps listed in the article, such as defining boxes for layout, then naming them, then listing changes, then determining dependencies. That counts as step-by-step instructions, I think.

The author also said: "A CSS algorithm is well-defined declaration or set of declarations that produces a specific styling output." and "Phrased another way, a CSS algorithm is a very intentional and well thought-out utility pattern."

That's pretty explicitly including the design & thinking in the "algorithm" as I read it, don't you agree?

> an algorithm is typically an unambiguously defined, imperative solution to a problem

The English definition of an algorithm is closer to "a process or set of rules to be followed", and that's basically the extent of it. We programmers can use the word to mean more specific things if we want, but can't claim that the word always means the same thing to others as it does in our expert domain, or even that it always means the same thing in our domain.

I'd have to disagree with the qualification of "imperative", math algorithms and functional algorithms are widely accepted as algorithms by programmers. Unambiguous is always desirable, but can't be the definition. The words "process" and "rules" imply minimal ambiguity.

Re: Writing CSS Algorithms

#36

Post by ivanhoe »

pault wrote: post #29
ivanhoe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While these are really just boilerplate snippets for some common layouts, you can easily have an actual algorithm for CSS, too. For instance complex recipes/tricks for selecting just some of the nodes using different combinations of n-th child and sibling selectors are definitely algorithms, offering very generalized list of steps to follow to implement the logic on any number of elements.

I guess I can concede that. If you can compose an algorithm using a flow-based visual programming language I suppose you can consider a series of selectors an algorithm for applying styles, but by that logic every selector is an algorithm.

For me algorithm is simply an explanation/strategy of a list of steps needed to implement some logic and/or solve some problem. IMO it can even be a paper with IKEA instructions how to assemble a desk. Might not seem so, but if you'd tried to program a robot to do it, you'd probably call those steps the desk building algorithm. However I wouldn't call every css selector an algorithm on its own, just like print() function is not an algorithm - but if we have a routine to print say only odd numbers, that is definitely the (very simple) algorithm. Equally if you come up with a recipe how to combine css selectors into a series of rules to select e.g. N particular elements in an arbitrary list of DOM nodes, in my mind it's the full-blown algorithm too. Just my $.02 of course...

Re: Writing CSS Algorithms

#37

Post by tobr »

dahart wrote: post #35
tobr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not really what the article is saying, as far as I can tell. It describes the process for writing a CSS algorithm, not an algorithm for writing CSS. So in this use, the algorithm is something the CSS is doing, not the person. I think the issue is that an algorithm is typically an unambiguously defined, imperative solution to a problem. It involves step by step instructions that happen in a certain order. Even…

I hear you and I think you're making a reasonable point, but just for fun, I'll double down on the devil's advocate defense. I still think it's fair to include the person's activity in the broader idea of what constitutes an "algorithm" here, and I believe the article's language does support my interpretation. First, the author explicitly acknowledges that "algorithm" is being somewhat misused compared to it's conven…

I have to admit, you're doing a pretty good job of playing the devil's advocate. I absolutely agree that any word can be used in creative and novel ways and to express new ideas, I just find this example to be much more confusing than useful. :)

FWIW, I've been trying to find examples of things conventionally called algorithms, but which are not in essence imperative (in the sense that there are multiple operations that must happen in a certain order - "procedural" is perhaps a more precise word than "imperative"), but I can't really find anything, so I would like to insist that it's one of the defining characteristics of an algorithm.

Re: Writing CSS Algorithms

#38

Post by dahart »

tobr wrote: post #37
dahart wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you and I think you're making a reasonable point, but just for fun, I'll double down on the devil's advocate defense. I still think it's fair to include the person's activity in the broader idea of what constitutes an "algorithm" here, and I believe the article's language does support my interpretation. First, the author explicitly acknowledges that "algorithm" is being somewhat misused compared to it's conven…

I have to admit, you're doing a pretty good job of playing the devil's advocate. I absolutely agree that any word can be used in creative and novel ways and to express new ideas, I just find this example to be much more confusing than useful. :) FWIW, I've been trying to find examples of things conventionally called algorithms, but which are not in essence imperative (in the sense that there are multiple operations t…

Thanks, and I agree with you too, css algorithms can be confusing for most of us and useful for some at the same time. ;) I’ll concede to order and dependency in an algorithm being important, you’re right, it doesn’t feel right to exclude.

Re: Writing CSS Algorithms

#39

Post by atoav »

dmitriid wrote: post #14
atoav wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Athough I think CSS could be more than it is, I have never felt any need to use SCSS. Writing a complete new style for a typical blog costs me half a day with clever use of nesting, css variables and such. The pain points usually stem from inconsistencies in browser implementations. Except for missing functionality like not beeing able to select a element who has no child of a given type I never really felt that it t…

> with clever use of nesting I don't think CSS Nesting Level 3 is implemented anywhere (it only really got added last year [1]). And there are still ongoing discussions around it (e.g. media-queries [2]). > But maybe I should check out SCSS? Definitely, yes. There are quite a few things that would be wonderful to see in CSS: - better, less verbose syntax for variables - mixins and extends - nesting ... I forget what…

Thanks, maybe nesting was the wrong word, I meant inheritance. SCSS nesting is super nice – althoughvone could argue it could be counted as syntactical sugar.

Do you have a realtime workflow for scss?

Post reply on HN