I just have, thanks for the suggestion!
Sadly there's nothing new for me. I know the good points of atomic CSS (or utility-first CSS), but they haven't bought me. Maybe I'll write an article about it.
It's not like I'm completely against utility classes, actually. I've reached the conclusion that using a few is quite beneficial in terms of development velocity and maintainability. Like .uppercase, or .text-small. For the rest, I think there are better solutions.
Of course I will never despise those who prefer atomic CSS. They may be smart people moved by legitimate reasons, like in the video. But, as a developer with a healthy relation with CSS and its semantic approach, I believe the compromises that come from a utility-first toolkit are not worth it.
In the end my main goal is to have a markup the looks like the final example in this article of mine: even classes would be rarely used.
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.
That's a fair point. This video compares and contrasts semantic and atomic css patterns. Maybe give it a watch!
I just have, thanks for the suggestion!
Sadly there's nothing new for me. I know the good points of atomic CSS (or utility-first CSS), but they haven't bought me. Maybe I'll write an article about it.
It's not like I'm completely against utility classes, actually. I've reached the conclusion that using a few is quite beneficial in terms of development velocity and maintainability. Like
.uppercase, or.text-small. For the rest, I think there are better solutions.Of course I will never despise those who prefer atomic CSS. They may be smart people moved by legitimate reasons, like in the video. But, as a developer with a healthy relation with CSS and its semantic approach, I believe the compromises that come from a utility-first toolkit are not worth it.
In the end my main goal is to have a markup the looks like the final example in this article of mine: even classes would be rarely used.