Most of the problem with CSS is people trying to use it without understanding the most basic concepts of HTML. We see the same problem with client-side scripting in that people dive for it before they know enough HTML or CSS to be playing with that yet, or to even know if it's needed.
This is evident in how many of these garbage "frameworks" can't even be bothered to say media="screen" on their LINK tag. Because of course their screen layouts are so worth the bandwidth to send to my braille reader, or to screen readers, or even non-visual UA's like search engines.
Therefor people dive into the mind-numbingly dumbass half-tweet nose-breathing incompetent DISASTERS that are HTML/CSS frameworks. The monuments to the stupidity that are Bootcrap, Failwind, w3.css, YUI, and so forth with their undoing 23 years of progress, pissing on the very reasons HTML and CSS even EXISTS, and are a symptom of the poor education and worse documentation of said languages.
HTML is for saying what things are, grammatically and structurally. Even tags like <B> and <I> exists to say things WOULD be bold or italic when not <em>phasized -- such as a book title not being <cite>d -- or <strong>'s "more emphasis" -- like a entity/party in a legal document -- not that such text has to or should be italic or bold. Thus that MEANING can be conveyed across all UA's, not just browsers.
If you are choosing ANY of your HTML tags based on their default appearance, or using classes / id's that are presentational, you have shoved your cranium up 1997's rectum in terms of methodology. As I've said for ages the difference between:
class="text-center color-500-grey text-large"
And
<center><font color="#777" size="+2">
Amounts to exactly two things. Jack and ****, and Jack left town. It is literally the bleeding edge of 1997 development practices. Made all the more pathetic by how if you dare to talk out against the derpitude, people accuse you of being stuck in the past.
When such ignorant practices are the norm, disrespecting the very reason CSS even exists, it's hardly a shock the rank and file hate it, when it's actually a thousand times simpler than people think.
Folks out there don't learn to use HTML properly, thus they can't learn to use CSS properly, and it cascades down from there into asinine trash like presentational classes, BEM, pre-processors, frameworks, etc, etc, etc,
Thus why the people who CREATE front-end frameworks generally aren't qualified to write a single blasted line of HTML in the first place... as evident for EVERY blasted example people "learn from" in the idiocy that are front-end frameworks. The people MAKING these "alternatives" never learned enough HTML or CSS to build such systems in the first place, which is why they're unqualified to build anything, much less have the unmitigated gall to tell others how to do so.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Most of the problem with CSS is people trying to use it without understanding the most basic concepts of HTML. We see the same problem with client-side scripting in that people dive for it before they know enough HTML or CSS to be playing with that yet, or to even know if it's needed.
This is evident in how many of these garbage "frameworks" can't even be bothered to say media="screen" on their LINK tag. Because of course their screen layouts are so worth the bandwidth to send to my braille reader, or to screen readers, or even non-visual UA's like search engines.
Therefor people dive into the mind-numbingly dumbass half-tweet nose-breathing incompetent DISASTERS that are HTML/CSS frameworks. The monuments to the stupidity that are Bootcrap, Failwind, w3.css, YUI, and so forth with their undoing 23 years of progress, pissing on the very reasons HTML and CSS even EXISTS, and are a symptom of the poor education and worse documentation of said languages.
HTML is for saying what things are, grammatically and structurally. Even tags like <B> and <I> exists to say things WOULD be bold or italic when not <em>phasized -- such as a book title not being <cite>d -- or <strong>'s "more emphasis" -- like a entity/party in a legal document -- not that such text has to or should be italic or bold. Thus that MEANING can be conveyed across all UA's, not just browsers.
If you are choosing ANY of your HTML tags based on their default appearance, or using classes / id's that are presentational, you have shoved your cranium up 1997's rectum in terms of methodology. As I've said for ages the difference between:
And
Amounts to exactly two things. Jack and ****, and Jack left town. It is literally the bleeding edge of 1997 development practices. Made all the more pathetic by how if you dare to talk out against the derpitude, people accuse you of being stuck in the past.
When such ignorant practices are the norm, disrespecting the very reason CSS even exists, it's hardly a shock the rank and file hate it, when it's actually a thousand times simpler than people think.
Folks out there don't learn to use HTML properly, thus they can't learn to use CSS properly, and it cascades down from there into asinine trash like presentational classes, BEM, pre-processors, frameworks, etc, etc, etc,
Thus why the people who CREATE front-end frameworks generally aren't qualified to write a single blasted line of HTML in the first place... as evident for EVERY blasted example people "learn from" in the idiocy that are front-end frameworks. The people MAKING these "alternatives" never learned enough HTML or CSS to build such systems in the first place, which is why they're unqualified to build anything, much less have the unmitigated gall to tell others how to do so.