On: CSS: The bad bits and how to avoid them

[drinchev]

I'm a huge fan of 1 & 2, so I end up using CSS with only class names.

This helped me deliver maintainable and reliable stylesheets that other devs like.

Most importantly using only class names you will gain :

1. Your HTML / CSS is easier to maintain.

2. Is faster to develop.

3. Is faster to refactor.

4. Is more portable.

5. Is faster for the browser.

I even wrote a blog post about it [1].

http://www.drinchev.com/blog/css-with-only-class-names/

[abhirag → drinchev]

This might be right up your alley -- http://tachyons.io/ I also use a similar approach and thus love functional CSS :)

[mozumder → drinchev]

ID is faster than CLASS for the browser, especially when selecting by ID in Javascript.

[wvenable → drinchev]

But your HTML is uglier.

[naasking → wvenable]

So? The only people looking at your html classes are you and your team. Bots don't process css, and most people don't look at html.

[wvenable → naasking]

The same people looking and working on the CSS are the same people looking and working on the HTML. HTML full of long complex class names is a bit harder to grok.

I actually prefer nice semantic HTML but I admit that's not always possible.

[naasking → wvenable]

> HTML full of long complex class names is a bit harder to grok.

I wouldn't recommend long and complex names either, but with something like tachyons, they're not long or complex, there are simply long lists of orthogonal classes.