
Basscss – Low-level CSS toolkit - achairapart
http://www.basscss.com/
======
daturkel

      .italic  { font-style: italic } 

from [0]

This is certainly odd considering how far we've come in embracing semantic
markup and styling.

[0]: [http://www.basscss.com/docs/utility-
typography/](http://www.basscss.com/docs/utility-typography/)

~~~
Geee
Considering how we build HTML from templates anyway, this form might be more
useful, especially in something like React components. I.e. you build the full
class string in code rather than defining separate CSS classes for each
component. Your components are obviously named semantically and all relevant
CSS styles / transitions / animations are defined inside the component code.

~~~
musername
the ypeface isn't semantic so the name reflecting the typeface isn't either.
emphasis has semantic value (think of the latex command \emph), but italics is
styling

------
antidaily
<div class="col col-6 sm-col-4 md-col-3 lg-col-2 px2 mb3">...

Another example of something that's tiny and super fast for prototyping but
produces code bloat and non-semantic classes. Looks great otherwise. No SASS
version?

~~~
ebiester
I get the non-semantic classes argument, but I've never seen a solution that
is generic, responsive, and semantic. Any leads?

~~~
cobalt
The idea is more to write it for each site, so you have site specific design

~~~
antidaily
Right. I use mixins to apply these declarations to classes. Which has its own
drawbacks.

------
tobr
What does "immutable" mean in the context of CSS?

~~~
tobr
Found their definition[0] of what immutable means. Apparently the idea is that
you can trust that the rules in an immutable CSS selector will never change in
the future. "Immutable" seems like a pretty confusing term for this.

[0]
[http://www.basscss.com/docs/reference/principles/#immutable-...](http://www.basscss.com/docs/reference/principles/#immutable-
utilities)

~~~
bshimmin
I guess after "Object-oriented CSS" it was inevitable we would get Functional
CSS...

------
vinspee
I really really want to love this. I'm so close to loving it.

I'm a fan of utility classes. I don't think that classes should be named based
on their content, or that we should be using stupidly specific and complex
selectors so we can keep our markup clean (clean markup has nothing to do with
class names or selectors); But I feel like this takes to too far.

What do I gain over inline styles? This doesn't seem to be too much more
maintainable than that.

~~~
mrmrs
You gain a significant amount of performance. And readability. You would also
lose a lot of the benefits of framework level variables with only using inline
styles.

------
mthq
Looks nice! But I wonder, what is the reason to use this over something like
bootstrap?

~~~
FractalNerve
I initially thought, hey great that's something you simply include and have a
base layout that's a great starting point for any type of project, but after
looking through the document I realized that it comes with as many "modules"
as bootstrap or other full-blown "css-frameworks". Wish they just made a
better and more consize and proven {normalize.css reset.css base.css}

Some of the styles are nice and ready to copy though, ie. the table styles,
but not sure what the intention of this project is.

\--

→ What lightweight css-starter-kit would you choose for any of your upcoming
projects? Other than reset.css or normalize.css of course :)

I don't like bootstrap and similar, because it's just too large and most
people end up using all of the classes and the whole javascript instead of
only the stuff they need. Bootstrap is absolutely great for projects that
quickly need a whole "UI Theme" fix.

~~~
sumbumble
I like Nicolas Gallagher's SUIT CSS style foundation, utilities and
components. [https://suitcss.github.io/](https://suitcss.github.io/)

~~~
FractalNerve
That's completely new to me, but it looks nice. Thank you. I only knew about
stylus,
[http://learnboost.github.io/stylus/](http://learnboost.github.io/stylus/) but
that's just a preprocessor.

------
tshadwell
"low level" CSS? It's a sad day when a collection of CSS classes is referred
to as "low level". Lower level than bootstrap, I assume?

~~~
simple10
Yeah, confusing. "Low level" CSS at best seems to refer to composable and
minimal.

