First of all, somehow this whole comment mostly read like how a politician would answer a question. That is, not actually provide insight, but talk meta. I'm not trying to be ad hominem, I'm just saying how it felt to me.
Splitting UI into small reusable components
From my experience it almost never actually works out like that. Write something reusable and next time it won't actually be usable like that.
One of your original points was that the browser only gets to interpret something it actually needs... Which brings me to the question: How does it save anything if now, instead of getting CSS rules by a .css file, it now gets CSS rules in a .js file? Also, how is your filtering logic on what CSS to actually present to the browser better than the browsers logic of parsing a CSS file, picking out what it actually needs?
I am inclined to trust the browser with being able to pick apart CSS that I wrote in a performant way (it's written in C++ too, and had hundreds of pairs of eyes on it in it's lifetime) rather than trusting me being able to present the right css to the browser at the right time. Also, I'm not sure but I assume it sets style attributes on the fly? Which would also not allow the browser to pre-parse and optimize CSS that was given to it in advance.
Why shoot it down when it's the right tool for the job?
Honestly, this way of phrasing it basically implies that it's a non-discussable given that it's the right tool and that critics are just trying to shoot down something they're ignorant about.
Wrote CSS for the better part of a decade, so I don't think "I've got CSS wrong"
I don't know, I've been writing CSS for like 13 years and while I do think I am quite proficient in it (by now), it doesn't mean this knowledge is a hard overwrite of everyone who disagrees with me. I mean, I disagree and think you've got CSS wrong, but more on the technical side. I elaborated above why.
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.
First of all, somehow this whole comment mostly read like how a politician would answer a question. That is, not actually provide insight, but talk meta. I'm not trying to be ad hominem, I'm just saying how it felt to me.
From my experience it almost never actually works out like that. Write something reusable and next time it won't actually be usable like that.
One of your original points was that the browser only gets to interpret something it actually needs... Which brings me to the question: How does it save anything if now, instead of getting CSS rules by a .css file, it now gets CSS rules in a .js file? Also, how is your filtering logic on what CSS to actually present to the browser better than the browsers logic of parsing a CSS file, picking out what it actually needs?
I am inclined to trust the browser with being able to pick apart CSS that I wrote in a performant way (it's written in C++ too, and had hundreds of pairs of eyes on it in it's lifetime) rather than trusting me being able to present the right css to the browser at the right time. Also, I'm not sure but I assume it sets style attributes on the fly? Which would also not allow the browser to pre-parse and optimize CSS that was given to it in advance.
Honestly, this way of phrasing it basically implies that it's a non-discussable given that it's the right tool and that critics are just trying to shoot down something they're ignorant about.
I don't know, I've been writing CSS for like 13 years and while I do think I am quite proficient in it (by now), it doesn't mean this knowledge is a hard overwrite of everyone who disagrees with me. I mean, I disagree and think you've got CSS wrong, but more on the technical side. I elaborated above why.