[dsego]

One bad thing about CSS is cascading. Too bad that's the main thing. Some styles like colors and fonts move like a plague into every nook and cranny, all children elements get infected. Others like border get applied only onto the targeted element. Heavily nested selectors is another one, good luck overriding a style on a bootstrap element, their selectors strictly follow html nesting levels. You want to override a td style by a adding a class, you mean .table > tbody > tr > td.yourclass. Ugh. Sass only helps you write even more convoluted CSS if you don't know what you are doing, it's like C and C++.

[RobertRoberts]

>One bad thing about CSS is cascading.

This is an odd statement, considering that the C is CSS is "cascading". Maybe it's a perspective issue, because I really enjoy the cascading part of CSS. Don't you think it's better that we _don't_ have to set a color for each element/child element individually?

[dsego]

I know C in CSS is cascading, that doesn't make it a good feature. I think it's one of the big reasons that the web is slow and bloated. CSS is needlessly complex, no wonder it takes herculean efforts from browser vendors to keep up with the exploding complexities [1].

[1]https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/08/inside-a-super-fast-css-en...

[talmand]

One reason for the cascading is to reduce bloat. If the CSS is bloated because of cascading and/or needlessly complex then the CSS and/or design is wrong, not the cascading.

[RobertRoberts]

I don't think the web is slow or bloated, only individual websites are slow or bloated. CSS is absolutely brilliant, and from what I have read, Javascript is the main culprit for badly performing websites.

I don't think a solid argument can be made that because the CSS rendering engine is complicated that it's not performant. Chrome documentation says it's possible to target 60fps with CSS/JS animations.[0]

[0] https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/r...