Simplify your CSS selectors 

Everytime css is more like sass

I'd say this is a lot more readable then native CSS: .themeSelection { &.light, &.dark, &.auto { &:hover, &:focus-within { .middleTheme { // Styles... } } } }

Same here, i struggle to keep up with the chicken and egg race that CSS has become.

Honestly, I prefer the second method. Idk why, it seems cleaner to me

It’s probably because we’re just not used to it. It’s like when you first saw ternary conditional operators, it seems so unintuitive, but then after sometime using it, it’s actually way cleaner and easier to understand.

i agree, way easier.

I'm the opposite! I'm excited for more of the scientific method in naming conventions for programming.

Agreed, but I still think it's cool to know it can be done this way.

Agree with above but just requires too much thinking to understand - I always try to write code as if the next person is as dumb as me.....

@@acidhauss7018 if you're looking for that dumb guy, I'm right here 🙋🏾‍♂️😂

Totally agree, don't make me have to think

Yea his solution is shortened, not simplified. Reminds me of those one-liner leetcode solutions that are filled with obscure syntax tricks.

How is it more complicated if it’s simplified?

@@turolretar just read the replay above

just move the monitor

😁

What's hard to understand? Ends up looking like a SQL select statement. I love it!

Actually when you find yourself writing and refactoring css code every single day you will discover the value of these shorthands, despite the reading complexity they add to the codes.

When people make a dark mode button/option it's using JavaScript. It's definitely a good JS starting point though, and there are plenty of good examples/tutorials you can find.

Take your pick! ru-vid.comsearch?query=dark%20mode

I work for a business and also do freelance. If a costumer asks me to work on a project with SASS/SCSS/LESS I immediately assume the code is pure garbage and will not touch it. Personally I think SASS/SCSS/LESS is very hard to read, maintain and the code looks like a complete mess. I want to get work done and not spend must of the time trying to understand what other people did or tried to do.

@@narcos1024 I think it's situational. We use SCSS for the nesting and easy namespacing. Occasionally we throw a mixin in there to keep things DRY, but we keep them as simple as possible. We do have some legacy SCSS, however, that's pretty illegible and tries to do things I don't think should be done with styles in the first place. The less logic in a stylesheet the better, imo.

@@narcos1024 I'm using SASS for variables, nesting and sometimes placeholders and I think it is much more readable than CSS. In my option, if SASS "code looks like a complete mess", you cannot write good CSS/SASS code.

@@aesthet1k_ more libraries, more unnecessary complexity on file structure and more build time. I understand why you would do it, but personally I think it's not worth it. I pass every single project that is not full vanilla css.

@@Shulkerkiste I think it goes to personal preference. For me SASS, or anything that is not vanilla css, is very hard to read. So it's a big pass on this.

I do, and still use :is() a ton! Sass would simplify that crazy selector, but combine the & with it and you can really hammer things home an extra level, though readability can be questioned if you go too far 😅

Other than some edge cases these days, I wouldn't worry about IE. Some companies have to support it still, which I get, but they are few and far between. Even Microsoft has stopped supporting it for their online products, as has Netflix, Google, etc. Now, that doesn't mean not caring at all, but as long as someone on IE has a useable experience (meaning the site isn't completely broken), then, imo, it's fine.

@@KevinPowell 5.8% of internet users still use IE as their main browser. And not bacause awaiting more bugs, from developers. Companies like Netflix and Google cannot support because their products to expensive and big. PS: If you are good, u must help any user, deaf, blind, and even those who have an old computer. If not, then why teach others how not to do it.

@@eugenex8892 100% agree that supporting all users is very important! I don't know where that 5.8% number you have comes from though. Last global numbers I've seen are closer to 0.58%. Most users who are on IE aren't there by choice, so making an unusable experience for them is a fail, but I think there are 2 important points to consider. those who are on it make up very specific niches, in general, so for some people, it's *very* important that they support it, but in many circumstances it's a *very* small number... But second point is every user should have a usable experience, like you said, so even if it's only 1 user, you don't want it to be an unusable experience. But that doesn't mean they need the same experience. They need something functional where they can consume the content, but of it's not the same experience as someone on chrome, that's fine. Someone on chrome on desktop and mobile have different experiences as well... Now, that is some nuance I could add to my videos when I do mention newer features, but I really do believe we're past the point of being handcuffed by IE