[cercatrova]

> A particular example is using an animation library like Framer Motion that works with JS. It is somewhat possible to achieve similar effects in CSS, creating your own spring function in SCSS for example, to interpolate between values, but I'm not going to do that because it's effectively double the work for 1% of the users.

> > Doing only the JS version means you spend the same engineering effort but it doesn't work for as many people

Where did I say it would be the same engineering effort? I explicitly said it's more for the CSS version. In my example, the CSS version is inferior to what the JS library can already do. Creating a spring animation is only one of the things that Framer Motion can do in JS built in. If I did everything in (S)CSS I would basically be re-implementing Framer Motion, which, as I stated, is double the work for <1% of users. Why would I want to re-implement a package when it's already there for me to use? So yes, it "absolutely makes sense" to do everything in JS only.

[yellowapple]

> Where did I say it would be the same engineering effort?

Saying "double the work" implies the doubling to be total - i.e. the Framer Motion approach and the SCSS approach are each 100%, and doing both would therefore be 200% or double.

What you're saying now would be more accurately described as "triple the work" - i.e. Framer Motion would be 100%, SCSS would be double that (200%), and the total would be 300% or triple.

[cercatrova]

Yeah, I guess you could say that, so in reality it's even worse (more overall work for me) in order to reach 1% of users.