91–100 of 129 posts
A bit meta, but I need this off my chest: I love how this document starts off saying "this is for react apps". IMO every discussion about CSS coding standards needs to start with context. A lot of old CSS lore came from people who build websites. I mean those fairly uninteractive things, focus on content. Blogs, restaurants, newspapers. Building an application that happens to use the DOM as their UI toolkit is totall…
What difference does the content make if the styling is meant to be the same?
"reuse pieces of behavior"
Now, that made me curious. Can you expand on that because I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean.
edit: I've read through the naming convention they describe and I don't see much anything that different than how I would create CSS for a website. It's just a clean naming convention that would work for a website as well as an application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enterprise in the US. IE9 still rules, in many cases. I actually work all over this space, do not tell me otherwise. And now I have to maintain two codebases?
Been there, done that. But you might mention to bosses/clients that MS no longer supports/patches anything older than IE-11 on desktop versions of Windows. They are most likely using an un-patch-able version of Explorer. Virii, Trojans and Hacks, oh my! https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/End-of-IE...
I don't even want to admit how many managers come back to them with "we mitigate that risk with user education, we have too many legacy (blah blah blah)." There's always some excuse, isn't there? Usually within departments, but once executive-level hears this sort of thing, they tend to at least investigate what the real risks are. So I'm adding on to your advice to other readers to suggest they "go higher" with their security warning.
Man, I wish we lived in a world where management understood that people are shockingly good at finding ways of not doing what they're told!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with respect to 3rd party libraries. One of the things I hate most about Bootstrap is its amazing overuse of !important. However, my context was mainly around architecting your own CSS, not as it relates to using someone else's.
My approach is to slap myself in the face each time I need to use !important. That's enough to prevent me from slipping into bad habits but leaves me with an option if rewriting my CSS to work around somebody else's (or my own) hacks would be more painful than a slap in the face. I do occasionally get strange looks from my colleagues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still common to find Citrix environments with IE 8/9 here in .nl healthhcare sector
Someone should write an exploit for IE 8/9 that upgrades them to Firefox.
https://www.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/chrome-frame-get...
Discontinued though.
For a context, I somehow can't wrap my head around writing something like:
About the flexbox, ah, well, even now they have undefined behaviour on several elements such as a `fieldset` [1].
[1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28078681/why-cant-fieldse...
Some thoughts: - Good CSS design needs zero !important statements. Fix your specificity or your component architecture if you have a need to use !important. - DRY is a good thing, not a bad thing. Maybe straight CSS isn't quite there yet but... - Why not use the tools at your disposal to aid in development (and DRY) such as SASS/LESS? - Flexbox will be great once IE dies the well-earned death it deserves. I'm very ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've done those verticals, too. We always had Firefox. I don't know what it's like now. That was 10 years ago. (AKA sit down and shut up with your bullshit "sit down and shut up"s)
I literally deal with students in every class, a not-small percentage of students, that are disallowed by domain policy from installing another browser.
IT can be brow beat just as hard as developers. They will change whatever domain policies you make them change. Quit being a pushover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What amazes me is how violently the run-of-the-mill programmer hates namespaces. Despite the fact that managing namespace collision is important for composability (either deliberate or accidental) and code generation. This problem has, for instance, dogged RDF. All the time I hear about programmers who "don't want to learn SPARQL" and I think the heavy use of namespaces is one of the impediments. For most other progr…
That reminds me of a colleague complaining about a recent cohort of about 60 webdev graduates. Not a single one wanted to learn perl, but were quite happy to get stuck into anything Javascript preferably react! EDIT: why the downvotes?
I don't particularly like the Javascriptification of every technology but these webdev graduates have the right idea.