|
|
|
|
|
|
by snorlaxle
2623 days ago
|
|
|
I believe the criticism was fair here. The author specifically used "339 bytes" on the headline which implies a certain level of precision. Being orders of magnitude away from the claimed file size is not excusable. It just feels like click bait. Not counting imported CSS is simply wrong here. I can have a full-featured responsive CSS framework in <50 bytes if I @import bootstrap.css |
|
|