Astro Hacker News - Modern CSS Code Snippets: Stop writing CSS like it's 2015

ktpsns |next [-]

CSS in 2025: Let's write html inlined styles as if it was 2005 and separation of formatting/representation was never invented. I talk of tailwind, of course.

crooked-v |root |parent |next [-]

Tailwind is a direct response to how the "C" in "CSS" actually sucks, so there's no surprise that it's so popular.

mattlondon |root |parent |next |previous [-]

Wait until you see React & JSX...

At least html and CSS are both presentation. React/JSX now confuses presentation and business logic.

lateforwork |root |parent |next [-]

> React/JSX now confuses presentation and business logic

React was originally designed to be the "V in MVC". You can still use it that way. React becomes very simple when you only use it as the V in MVC.

azangru |root |parent [-]

What are the M and the C, and how do they talk to the V in this case?

lateforwork |root |parent |next [-]

M stands for Model layer. This layer handles business logic and knows nothing about UI. It does not have any html or CSS.

V stands for View. This layer handles HTML and CSS. You can use React here.

C stands for Controller. Controllers know about Views and Models and which model objects to instantiate for which view. It makes REST API calls and does caching, and handles errors. Controllers know about the application state and decide what page to display next.

For an application written in this style see: https://github.com/wisercoder/eureka/tree/master/webapp/Clie...

(This app doesn't use React, but does use TSX, and you could use React as well).

apsurd |root |parent |next |previous [-]

react can be pure functions that take in props. Given a set of props, ideally data primitives, the outputted view is guaranteed. it's nice.

In practice, the entire JS ecosystem enjoys flying off the rails, every season, but it's not strictly react's fault.

To answer your question, however those props get into the component is up the the M & C. can be async server, or shoved in as json in the script tag.

azangru |root |parent [-]

If you move the data (the M and the C) entirely out of react, and only pass it in via props, there would be only one place — the root react node — where the props could get into react. Is this what you have in mind? Or are you envisioning multiple root nodes?

cbarrick |root |parent |previous [-]

- M for Model: your data model. - V for View: views of your data. - C for Controller: does stuff with your data.

bromuro |root |parent |previous [-]

React is great for MVVM indeed. Who is still using MVC in 2026?

h4x0rr |root |parent |previous [-]

Yeah let's do that. You have everything related to your component on place instead of jumping between files.

lawn |root |parent [-]

Is jumping between files supposed to be difficult or something?

afiori |root |parent |next [-]

Without a lot of discipline it is very easy to end up with a css with lots of unclear and hard to guess effects. Eg consider the case of <A type=1><B><A type=2></A></B></A> where A and B are complex templates. Any selector with the " " operator on A risk expanding to the inner A even if it was intended only for the outer. Similarly a :has selector might catch a descendant of the wrong element.

@scope fixes a lot of this, but it is a complex problem. With tailwind you mostly have to worry about inheritance

chrisweekly |root |parent |next |previous [-]

Colocation is a useful principle in component-based architecture.

apsurd |root |parent [-]

In my lived experience, shared components just become another problem. Especially in a fledgling company, the iteration velocity is actually negatively affected by shared libs because there's always overhead to (not) breaking legacy. so shared components bloat to address every evolving need.

And now with AI generated code i see so many wrapper patterns that forward endless props down, it's crazy!

TLDR: i almost always end up branching out into evergreen "reusable" components.

ewuhic |root |parent |next |previous [-]

Is staying in one file supposed to be difficult or something?

runarberg |root |parent |previous [-]

Also modern CSS is often written in a <style> tag either in a native web component or in a framework which supports single file component like vue or svelte.

Bengalilol |next |previous [-]

Me: cool, let's be creative, I love 2026.

Browsers: Yeah, but beware of limited availability, most of those creative examples are in the 40-50% browsers support range.

graypegg |root |parent [-]

In the past this was a major issue that meant useful features were only ever usable after IE/Safari finally supported them half a decade later, but it has seriously gotten better. Sadly as a result of Chromium's overbearing presence, but it's a helpful outcome at least.

https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025

cwillu |next |previous [-]

Stop pinning things to the edges of the screen and window. Some sites have literally over 50% of the viewable area taken up by irrelevant static elements. Let the content scroll, like god intended.

anematode |next |previous [-]

Random pet peeve... it annoys me when people have old browser-specific aliases to standardized CSS properties. For example, -o-tab-size and -moz-tab-size instead of just tab-size. Those properties haven't done anything on Opera/Firefox for a decade!

piskov |next |previous [-]

2015 is good enough.

For example instead of grid center, one can use flex and margin auto.

If you are building really nation-wide products, there are still a lot of guys in corporate with old windows (where even chrome stopped updating like win7). Or, you know, old or poor people with PC from 2008.

Also don’t forget guys with mobile phones: not like one could easily install a browser there. Especially on phones which no longer receive updates.

So writing CSS like it is 2015 is great. Not because it feels great but because it is what caring about your users (and business) is.

Otherwise you’ll get humbled by your clients soon enough. And in corporate they won’t even be your clients unless you support old stuff: IE 11 is a great target if you really want to shine.

nicoburns |root |parent |next [-]

I definitely don't agree with all of these, but grid centering is pretty nice and has a lot fewer quirks than Flexbox based solutions.

|root |parent [-]

|root |parent |previous [-]

jgalt212 |next |previous [-]

CSS and JavaScript are like two dysfunctional law enforcement agencies fighting over jurisdiction.

sublinear |root |parent [-]

All web standards are like this, and then the battle continues when it comes to browser implementation.

laacz |next |previous [-]

Is it just me or gradients and tile grid with specific hover effects are AI generated stuff giveaways? Maybe it's old people yelling at clouds, but I'm very reluctant to trust the site, when I see these signs.

apsurd |root |parent |next [-]

AI got it from people though.

I too am saddened by the instant-polish marketing pages everyone and their grandma deploys to Render, but also some people at some point in time really did make these effects. And they are nice. HTML based UIs will always have a place in my heart.

Btw: actually I think webflow did more to pump this stuff out to the masses. The animate on scroll being the biggest offender. It's so good, but not for every literal text paragraph on your local bakery's website.

samhh |root |parent |previous [-]

You’re right not to trust it, it’s wrongly calling sibling-index() widely available. And that’s the first example I checked.

user3939382 |previous [-]

CSS is the only thing from browsers we actually need. The rest can be done in a terminal. Contemporary terminals could even render the UI with way less memory. The browser is a nightmare because it wasn’t architected to run applications.

azangru |root |parent [-]

> The browser ... wasn’t architected to run applications.

Could you explain this? What prevents the browser from running applications? How should it have been architected otherwise if running applications was the goal?