> CSS on the other hand has always been the studious, well-behaved kid who always stays polite and never makes a rash decision<p>This is such a strange picture to paint!<p>CSS has always been the dim-witted kid. For a long time, it couldn't do math. For a long time, it couldn't have varibles. For a long time, it did not have a reasonable syntax for page layout. Its rules have global visibility (if we don't consider shadow DOM). And those vendor prefixes! This is one hell of a kid!
There's a missing feature. Look at a css page and know how the site will behave. Every programing language you look at code (if well written) and u know what it will do. In css you know what are the attributes set but it doesn't really tell you what is going you happen. That's the only thing I don't like in css.
Unsurprisingly Stylus is one of the preprocessors that people want to avoid the most (beating less by 1% in user satisfaction). The preprocessor is very apathetic to what style you use - it's the antithesis of a linter. Want to use a semicolon on this line, and not one on the next? Go for it! Not the best when you want to write something production worthy.<p>That said I've found it phenomenal for prototyping, simple codepen examples, and teaching css. I run the prototyping efforts at Atlassian and I've built a large amount of code prototyping tools focused on allowing designers to quickly build something out. The standard template I give to designers and students uses stylus by default because <i>it allows them to make mistakes</i>. People who are unfamiliar with code feel defeated when a small syntax error was the one thing holding them back - it makes them question their understanding of the intention of what they wrote, even when the meaning of what they had was correct. Stylus fixes so many of these things for me. I'd highly recommend doing any of your exploratory phases in Stylus.
The HTML in the report tells me as much about the state of CSS as what is in the report.<p>Sure a lot of people know lots of clever CSS things, but are we over-complicating things and forgetting the basics of HTML?<p>This report does not use HTML properly. It is a sea of divs which is all well and good for CSS but not what this whole thing is ultimately about.<p>The document structure has a main element but this is in the wrong place. According to the HTML spec the main element should be directly below the body element with no extra div wrappers.<p>Then the page has one nav element. Beyond that it uses none of the sensible HTML5 elements for the content. Nothing is broken down into sections, articles and asides. Graphs are not in figures.<p>These elements are important, otherwise we might as well just give up and just post images with imagemaps.<p>Surely some content on the report must be a 'header' or part of what you might call a 'footer'?<p>I don't get this complacency when it comes to writing HTML, why everything always has to be in a div when the spec says you should only being divs when there are no better elements.<p>Since this report is entirely written in div soup with one nav element and one badly placed main, they don't know HTML so why should I take seriously what the report says about CSS? It is going to be the same cargo cult stuff.
I just can't take this website serious. Is it a parody or a joke?
It looks awful and it doesn't even fit on mobile (<a href="https://i.imgur.com/6GD8yfD.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/6GD8yfD.png</a> && <a href="https://i.imgur.com/lxs0gVG.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/lxs0gVG.png</a>)<p>What happened to keeping it simple?
<a href="http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/" rel="nofollow">http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/</a> or <a href="http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/" rel="nofollow">http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/</a>
Well.. as a developer who probably works more with CSS and HTML than anything else, I really enjoyed this report. I found the visualizations and even the overall design provocative, and I even learned a few things in the process (overscroll-behavior?!)
If this was a photo pasted into word that was then printed and faxed it wouldn’t make the content any less meaningful.<p>Thanks for sharing the interesting results into various usages of css; I learnt about some new things, and found the usage of different things (especially units!) very interesting.<p>As an aside, the site worked great for me on mobile. Some images were big and slightly awkward to scroll around, but worked just fine.
> JavaScript has developed a bit of a reputation as the angry, rebellious teenager going through a new phase every year and telling you you're just too old to understand.<p>Couldn't agree more.<p>I imagine one of the many reasons is because CSS features can't be transpiled but many of JS can.
Given the results on layout tools:<p>Grid - 54.5% have used it, 43.2% heard of it, but haven't used it<p>Flexbox - 94.4% have used it, 4.64% heard of it, but haven't used it<p>...I wonder how the adoption of CSS grid will play out over time. Are people comfortable enough with flexbox that they don't feel the need to use CSS grid?
I think the most offensive thing here is that 6.2% of people use inches as a unit of measure in their css.<p>The thought of 𝚋𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚎𝚛: 𝟶.𝟸𝚒𝚗 𝚋𝚕𝚊𝚌𝚔; sitting in someone's css is terrifying.
Kinda all you need to know about the state of CSS in 2019: the menu’s bottom items cannot be accessed on mobile Safari. Also: the scrolling is awkward/broken.