| > Not sure why you're getting downvoted. 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. |
No, it's just an opinion and a comment on the sensationalistic article (sub)title.