I'm fine with the "this tiny codebase is DRY" justification (though how hard is it to be DRY with 37 lines...? DRY in the sense that it proves DRY-ness is a concept of computer science??? DRY in the sense that it conceptually overlaps with what other developers/programmers in the field are describing in their systems? DRY in that it appeals to a handful of niche programmers?), I'm fine with the package management justification (because it makes continuous integration possible with upgrades); I'm fine with the "I don't need to be a Pointer-dexter Programmer to write software". The problem is the "cute name" justification, or the idea this is a "good practice in the honored tradition of DRY".
The only problem here is that "who cares" if it is a "cute name". This isn't really DRY in a non-trivial sense. I mean, yet another grid system that calls grid-like things "grids". Yergh! Go read Brian Cantwell Smith's paper on "semiotic alchemy". More practically, I would say that all the points about filesize and what not are sadly irrelevant as true sources of anger. I honestly see this as no different as someone getting angry with someone else because they bought a foreign part to put in an American car. More puffery!
We have 7 "big" problems in CSS today:
Global Namespaces,
Dependencies,
Dead Code Elimination,
Minification,
Sharing Constants,
Non-deterministic Resolution,
Isolation.
What happened to the pursuit of truth? Alright. You put a framework on your résumé? But are you a computer scientist? Are you defending an idea? Or simply leveraging an old one?
We take and depend on a lot of code today. But now we are taking and depending on higher order concepts or principles to give the illusion of pursuit... of something.
This is a "grid system" only in name insofar as it surely is detached from the idea of why grid systems were invented, mostly assuredly, to solve problems.
The "filesize" problem of CSS is like the "filesize" problem of Bitcoin. It's just that nobody really likes CSS or knows they can build Turing Machines in it, so they hate you for it. Whereas in Bitcoin, it gets you a seed round to test yr vaporware. At least these little CSS publications don't cost society that much, I guess..
Typically when I venture down this path of "system building" in CSS land, I use Organic CSS[0] because it promotes fun, thinking, creativity, and gives me a scientific scheme within which to treat those 7 problems listed above.
Does this grid framework solve any of those problems listed above? Is it even concerned with them? Are devshops aching to refactor to the next tiniest grid system? Are we really looking to shave off submilliseconds from our HTTP requests? I mean, we have HTTP/2... so do those submilliseconds really matter these days?
The only problem here is that "who cares" if it is a "cute name". This isn't really DRY in a non-trivial sense. I mean, yet another grid system that calls grid-like things "grids". Yergh! Go read Brian Cantwell Smith's paper on "semiotic alchemy". More practically, I would say that all the points about filesize and what not are sadly irrelevant as true sources of anger. I honestly see this as no different as someone getting angry with someone else because they bought a foreign part to put in an American car. More puffery!
We have 7 "big" problems in CSS today:
What happened to the pursuit of truth? Alright. You put a framework on your résumé? But are you a computer scientist? Are you defending an idea? Or simply leveraging an old one?We take and depend on a lot of code today. But now we are taking and depending on higher order concepts or principles to give the illusion of pursuit... of something.
This is a "grid system" only in name insofar as it surely is detached from the idea of why grid systems were invented, mostly assuredly, to solve problems.
The "filesize" problem of CSS is like the "filesize" problem of Bitcoin. It's just that nobody really likes CSS or knows they can build Turing Machines in it, so they hate you for it. Whereas in Bitcoin, it gets you a seed round to test yr vaporware. At least these little CSS publications don't cost society that much, I guess..
Typically when I venture down this path of "system building" in CSS land, I use Organic CSS[0] because it promotes fun, thinking, creativity, and gives me a scientific scheme within which to treat those 7 problems listed above.
Does this grid framework solve any of those problems listed above? Is it even concerned with them? Are devshops aching to refactor to the next tiniest grid system? Are we really looking to shave off submilliseconds from our HTTP requests? I mean, we have HTTP/2... so do those submilliseconds really matter these days?
[0]: http://krasimir.github.io/organic-css/