it depends on details. I think CSS-in-JS is a wash for layout but net-negative across the board for content.
-
-
Replying to @wycats
I don't follow, if you accept a build system, how is manipulating the inline style object or injecting generated stylesheets bad?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I definitely don't think it's elegant to add such complexity, but maintaining CSS that works in today's browsers is a nightmare
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @etrepum
there are other choices. I predict that by the end of 2017 the "leading edge" will look very moment-in-time.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
I'd like to hear about other choices for maintainable CSS, everything I've seen is either BEM-like or still very JS-centric
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @etrepum
I like a pared down Shadow DOM with good conventions for linking to component systems.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats
can shadow dom be reasonably polyfilled? Native support for it still seems really low.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @etrepum
it's hard, but you can probably use a much less annoying BEM + framework help to do something very similar.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
we have been doing something along those lines, it is very easy to screw the CSS up and can generate a ton of silly class names
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
still better than not using a thing, but going closer to JS solves some of those problems
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
going to JS makes major issues for content for me.
-
-
Replying to @wycats
I'd still prefer to write the rules in CSS syntax, but expect the classes to basically live in the JS module namespace.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.