+201223538180

Web site Developer I Advertising I Social Media Advertising I Content material Creators I Branding Creators I Administration I System Resolution”We had 90% unused CSS as a result of all people was afraid to the touch the previous stuff”

Web site Developer I Advertising I Social Media Advertising I Content material Creators I Branding Creators I Administration I System Resolution”We had 90% unused CSS as a result of all people was afraid to the touch the previous stuff”

Web site Developer I Advertising I Social Media Advertising I Content material Creators I Branding Creators I Administration I System Resolution

Over on the JS Occasion poundcast:

[Kend C. Dodds]: […] ask anyone who’s executed common, previous CSS they usually’ll inform you that “I don’t know if it’s okay for me to vary this, so I’m gonna duplicate it.” And now we’ve acquired – at PayPal (this isn’t made up) we had 90% unused CSS on the undertaking I used to be utilizing, as a result of all people was afraid to the touch the previous stuff. So we simply duplicated one thing new and known as it one thing else. And also you would possibly simply say that we’re unhealthy at CSS, however perhaps CSS was unhealthy at us, I don’t know… [laughter]

[Emma Bostain]: Properly, that’s why styled-components and CSS-in-JS was so pivotal; it was like “Oh, hey, we will truly encapsulate all of this logic contained in the element that it’s touching and don’t have to fret about bleeding code anymore.” It’s a lot simpler to delete issues, and add issues, and all of these issues.

[Kend C. Dodds]: Yeah, you’re exactly proper. That was the issue that these issues had been made to unravel.

Audio clip:

I’ve heard this actual story earlier than a number of occasions, normally from massive firms. A number of builders, typical developer turnover… no person is aware of what CSS is definitely used and what isn’t as a result of that may be a very exhausting downside.

That’s one of many causes I typically like component-based-styling options (CSS-in-JS, when you’re nasty). Not as a result of I like advanced tooling. Not as a result of I like JavaScript syntax higher than CSS. Due to the co-location of kinds and componentry. As a result of no person is afraid of the kinds anymore — they’re tightly coupled to what they’re styling. It’s not wanted on each undertaking, however when you’re constructing with elements anyway (an awfully good technique to architect front-ends that doesn’t require JavaScript), you would possibly as properly type this fashion.

Because of this, I’m excited that “scoped kinds” are making a little bit of a comeback in requirements discussions.

I bear in mind an historic concept (that perhaps even shipped in browsers for a minute?) the place you’d simply chuck a <type scoped> block proper within the HTML and regardless of the dad or mum was, the kinds had been scoped to that dad or mum. That was so cool, I want we may have that once more.

But it surely looks as if the newer stuff (right here’s Miriam’s authentic proposal) has some extra intelligent stuff that that primary idea doesn’t cowl — like with the ability to set a lower-boundary along with an upper-boundary, making it potential to scope “donut-shaped” kinds within the DOM (a Nicole Sullivan time period). No matter occurs, shadow DOM-free scoped kinds with zero tooling is big.

Supply hyperlink

Leave a Reply