Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by Yaggo on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @04:29AM
(#11295819)
I wish there was gentlewomen^H^H^H^H^Hfolks agreement to use minified size for library size comparison, not gzipped size, because minified size better tells how much there are code to read/understand & parse/execute, while gzipped size tells how much there are bytes to transfer, and the bottleneck is generally the former.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by coderdude on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @04:36AM
(#11295839)
Just say gentleman's agreement. It's okay to use a real phrase.
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by Yaggo on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @04:45AM
(#11295867)
Thanks sir, but I prefer gender neutral wording. (Note to self: humor, do not use.)
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by Stratoscope on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @05:56AM
(#11296118)
Not only is it OK to use a real phrase like "gentleman's agreement", it communicates better. People will more easily understand what you mean, and they won't be distracted when you attempt to be gender-neutral by calling attention to gender.
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by Yaggo on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @06:18AM
(#11296184)
The above is all true but only because gender-neutral words are not yet used widely enough, and the only way to change that is to systemically prefer gender-neutral words. Isn't it part of hacker mentality that one should fix broken things and one should not be afraid of change?
(I guess this is largely culture related thing, but e.g. among my peers (high educated 30s Europeans) gender-biased words actually cause more distraction.)
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by FroshKiller on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @10:20AM
(#11297492)
Your affectation of the old terminal-style backspacing joke is way more distracting than "gentleman's agreement" could ever have been.
And anyway, I think you'd have been better off just saying, "I wish we could all agree...."
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by cptskippy on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @09:38AM
(#11297136)
What an odd thing to get your knickers in a twist about.
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by markdown on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @05:10AM
(#11295946)
Then why didn't you use gender-neutral wording?
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by luckydata on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @05:11AM
(#11295952)
how is that neutral?
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by marvy on Thursday March 24, 2016 @09:47AM
(#11352681)
Don't people usually mention both? This one didn't. But even the full un-minified source code of this one is just a bit over a kilobyte, so perhaps the author didn't feel the need to minify in the first place.
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by topaxi on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @04:42AM
(#11295861)
I don't think parsing and executing is the bottleneck, especially on mobile connections. Do you have any numbers on this?
Re:Grd – A CSS grid framework using Flexbox in 512 bytes gzi...
by Yaggo on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @04:55AM
(#11295896)
It's actually worse on mobile, because mobile connections typically are not order of magnitude slower than non-mobile, but mobile cpu power can be order of magnitude more limited (esp. on lower end hardware).