[aleksiy123]

Its arguing that that source code that affects the behaviour of something should be easily discoverable from the point/points its behaviour affects. or alternatively more indirection/obfuscation is worse.

Its not so much about same file, as reducing distance to understanding, whether visually or by some sort of easily traceable path.

Like you would want to init a variable closer to its usage, Or that having a 100 wrapper functions is less understandable than inlining for a single statement, or global mutations are harder to trace then local, and that sometimes its easier to inline a single sql statement then split it out into a different file just because its 2 different languages.

Also, to be clear its possible to write CSS that exhibits less or more LoB. The file thing is more that I don't think HTML, CSS, JS "must" be written as separate files which is what the prevailing best practice used to be, justified as SoC. I just think splitting along the scope/behaviour lines rather than file type is more understandable.

[mcv]

> the behaviour of something should be easily discoverable from the point/points its behaviour affects. or alternatively more indirection/obfuscation is worse.

This is why I'm not that big of a fan of Tailwind and similar frameworks. To me it feels like they introduce yet another language into the mix. It adds all sorts of classes directly to the html, but now I need to understand what all of those mean. If I write my own CSS, I generally just have to look in one place to understand the styling of an element.

I think I feel kind of like that about overuse of annotations in Java. (Simple/obvious ones are fine, but not all are simple and obvious.)

[timr]

> Its not so much about same file, as reducing distance to understanding, whether visually or by some sort of easily traceable path.

The metaphor remains valid. You can do this all the way down the abstraction stack, back to functions.