Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Problems with CSS at Scale are very real (as mentioned in the slide). But this is a super complicated solution. Its like one of the head-over-heels approaches in JoelOnSoftware blogs. Surely there has to be a simpler way.
Its good that the authors are trying. But just look at the picture on this article captioned "This is how intensely we’ve been thinking about CSS". That's where the whole complexity comes from I guess. Good solutions present themselves and fit naturally.
Because it doesn't contribute anything but nonconstructive criticism.
> Good solutions present themselves and fit naturally.
Complex problems require complex solutions.
Also, what's so complex and non-fitting about this solution? Explaining that (and your alternative solution) would be much better than simply criticizing as you and GP did.
> Surely there has to be a simpler way.
There's a technically simpler way: modules being part of the CSS spec. But they're not, so even if technically simpler as a solution, it's a political nightmare on which we developers have no control whatsoever.
Driving forward the status quo with hacks (like to-JS transpilers did) is nothing but beneficial. Hacks drive standards.
> "This is how intensely we’ve been thinking about CSS". That's where the whole complexity comes from I guess.
How much have you been been thinking about CSS and fighting its flaws? Obviously not a lot.
There is a simpler way. Even for large projects there is no need for the amount of CSS they usually have. It just takes some discipline and planning, alas that's often replaced by abdominations like BEM.
Its good that the authors are trying. But just look at the picture on this article captioned "This is how intensely we’ve been thinking about CSS". That's where the whole complexity comes from I guess. Good solutions present themselves and fit naturally.