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

The State of CSS 2019

2019.stateofcss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#41

Post by jcelerier »

the_other wrote: post #25
dmitriid wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If half the effort put into shitting on CSS went instead to improving it, maybe it would be perfect by now. More than half of effort is put into improving it. Too little reaches the final stages. > I defy anyone to explain how they would do it better and still satisfy all the constraints. I had a rant or two about this in the past: https://medium.com/@dmitriid/ok-w3c-and-whatwg-dont-die-but-... :) CSS and HTML stil…

And you can't run Delphi or QT based projects on Windows, macOS, Linux and Haiku, in most of the browsers that run on all those operating systems.

> QT based projects on Windows, macOS, Linux and Haiku,

Qt supports all of those and much more.

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#42

Post by jjcm »

jstimpfle wrote: post #39
jjcm wrote: post #29

I think the most offensive thing here is that 6.2% of people use inches as a unit of measure in their css. The thought of 𝚋𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚎𝚛: 𝟶.𝟸𝚒𝚗 𝚋𝚕𝚊𝚌𝚔; sitting in someone's css is terrifying.

As someone who hasn't done CSS in a while, with a 4K monitor and the knowledge how old pixel-based desktop apps look on it (VERY small), what's wrong with inches? From my own non-CSS based graphics experience, the only problem with layouts specified in absolute sizes is that small lines look really bad on standard (<100dpi) monitors if not aligned to the physical screen pixels. (Not saying that's not bad!)

Inches in css aren't in any way related to physical inches. CSS has no knowledge of your physical screen dimensions. Rather an inch was defined early on in the history of css as "1 inch in pixels of a 17 inch screen at 1280x1024 resolution" This happens to be 96.42 pixels, which rounded down to 96. So not only is it an obscure unit, it's also a misleading one.

On your 4k monitor 96 pixels is more than likely not an inch (unless your monitor is slightly over 42 inches), so it wont solve your small app problem in any form, it will just make things more obscure.

In addition to this, you'll also end up with many subpixel values. While this wont matter for 𝚋𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚎𝚛 in the example I posted above (as border always snaps to the nearest dp unit), it will create blurry effects on lower DPI screens for other css rules that do respect subpixel values (i.e. 𝚋𝚘𝚡-𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚠: 𝟶 𝟶 𝟶 𝟶.𝟸𝚒𝚗 #𝟶𝟶𝟶; will create a blurred border effect).

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#43

Post by jmull »

jjcm wrote: post #29

I think the most offensive thing here is that 6.2% of people use inches as a unit of measure in their css. The thought of 𝚋𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚎𝚛: 𝟶.𝟸𝚒𝚗 𝚋𝚕𝚊𝚌𝚔; sitting in someone's css is terrifying.

I'm dying to know: what's wrong with inches in CSS?

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#44

Post by looeee »

jmull wrote: post #43
jjcm wrote: post #29

I think the most offensive thing here is that 6.2% of people use inches as a unit of measure in their css. The thought of 𝚋𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚎𝚛: 𝟶.𝟸𝚒𝚗 𝚋𝚕𝚊𝚌𝚔; sitting in someone's css is terrifying.

I'm dying to know: what's wrong with inches in CSS?

I'm gonna guess that they have very little to do with inches in the real world, and will in fact display at different lengths on different screens.

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#45

Post by Permagate »

jstimpfle wrote: post #39
jjcm wrote: post #29

I think the most offensive thing here is that 6.2% of people use inches as a unit of measure in their css. The thought of 𝚋𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚎𝚛: 𝟶.𝟸𝚒𝚗 𝚋𝚕𝚊𝚌𝚔; sitting in someone's css is terrifying.

As someone who hasn't done CSS in a while, with a 4K monitor and the knowledge how old pixel-based desktop apps look on it (VERY small), what's wrong with inches? From my own non-CSS based graphics experience, the only problem with layouts specified in absolute sizes is that small lines look really bad on standard (<100dpi) monitors if not aligned to the physical screen pixels. (Not saying that's not bad!)

One other reason is probably because inches is not a universal unit of measurement for computer graphic. Especially for someone who comes from country where inch is never used (like me), you need to mentally calculate the value to something more familiar.

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#46

Post by jjcm »

azangru wrote: post #37
jjcm wrote: post #31

Unsurprisingly Stylus is one of the preprocessors that people want to avoid the most (beating less by 1% in user satisfaction). The preprocessor is very apathetic to what style you use - it's the antithesis of a linter. Want to use a semicolon on this line, and not one on the next? Go for it! Not the best when you want to write something production worthy. That said I've found it phenomenal for prototyping, simple co…

> Want to use a semicolon on this line, and not one on the next? Go for it! Not the best when you want to write something production worthy. What do semicolons - or braces, for that matter - have to do with production worthiness? Style inconsistencies do not cause bugs. Poor CSS rules do.

Inconsistencies in the source file do not affect production worthiness in the moment, but they do affect maintainability down the line. If for instance your team wants to move to a new css preprocessor that's the next big thing in 10 years, a consistent style means you can programatically convert to the new syntax. Or maybe there's a tool that can help you write better css and detect where rules are unused -variable syntax will be sand in the gears for something like that. Mishmoshed syntax everywhere is a nightmare for programatic accessibility, though is excellent for simply trying things out.

I love stylus, don't get me wrong. I use it for all my projects - even in production. But if I were the head engineer of say, google.com, I wouldn't allow it in production for a codebase that large due to the potential for problems down the line.

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#47

Post by jmull »

looeee wrote: post #44
jmull wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm dying to know: what's wrong with inches in CSS?

I'm gonna guess that they have very little to do with inches in the real world, and will in fact display at different lengths on different screens.

That's true, but that issue isn't specific to CSS inches. Pixels aren't pixels, points aren't points, etc.

It's not even an HTML/browser issue. There's a general problem with knowing in software the real-life physical size or length of something displayed on screen. The calibration information available isn't generally reliable, though I think people are paying more attention these days with the growing interest in AR.

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#48

Post by sureaboutthis »

azangru wrote: post #36

> CSS on the other hand has always been the studious, well-behaved kid who always stays polite and never makes a rash decision This is such a strange picture to paint! CSS has always been the dim-witted kid. For a long time, it couldn't do math. For a long time, it couldn't have varibles. For a long time, it did not have a reasonable syntax for page layout. Its rules have global visibility (if we don't consider shado…

For a long time, it didn't need any of those things. It's only been a recent need for marketing, mainly.

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#49

Post by sweece »

Liquidor wrote: post #4

I just can't take this website serious. Is it a parody or a joke? It looks awful and it doesn't even fit on mobile ( https://i.imgur.com/6GD8yfD.png && https://i.imgur.com/lxs0gVG.png ) What happened to keeping it simple? http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ or http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

There is such a thing as a bug or oversight and you found one. No need to get carried away w/ the blame game. Lots of other devices are experiencing this site just fine.

Re: The State of CSS 2019

#50

Post by [deleted] »

Theodores wrote: post #5

The HTML in the report tells me as much about the state of CSS as what is in the report. Sure a lot of people know lots of clever CSS things, but are we over-complicating things and forgetting the basics of HTML? This report does not use HTML properly. It is a sea of divs which is all well and good for CSS but not what this whole thing is ultimately about. The document structure has a main element but this is in the…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN