Re:In defense of functional CSS
by yakshaving_jgt on Thursday September 27, 2018 @01:38PM
(#18086813)
It's a weak analogy.
In programming, `f . g . h` is not the same as `h . f . g`.
In CSS, `<i class="a b c"></i>` is the same as `<i class="b c a"></i>`.
In programming, the order in which you define functions is not important — it's the order in which you use them which is important.
In CSS, it is the exact opposite.
To further drive the point home: assuming the names of these classes aren't lying, what colour is the text of this element?
<div class="text-red text-blue">foo</div>
It depends on the order in which the classes were defined. This also demonstrates why "pure" is a poor choice of word when describing anything to do with CSS. Nothing here is "pure".
In programming, `f . g . h` is not the same as `h . f . g`.
In CSS, `<i class="a b c"></i>` is the same as `<i class="b c a"></i>`.
In programming, the order in which you define functions is not important — it's the order in which you use them which is important.
In CSS, it is the exact opposite.
To further drive the point home: assuming the names of these classes aren't lying, what colour is the text of this element?
<div class="text-red text-blue">foo</div>
It depends on the order in which the classes were defined. This also demonstrates why "pure" is a poor choice of word when describing anything to do with CSS. Nothing here is "pure".