Honest question. Not trying to offend any css fans here.
Why would someone use this nowadays instead of just using AI? To me the purpose of these small css frameworks was to have a nice consistent UI quickly. What is the value of these frameworks now?
jszymborski 33 minutes ago [-]
Sometimes I don't want to take out the stand mixer and just mix things by hand. I prefer to walk to the grocery store rather than take the car. I don't always use a drill where a screwdriver will do.
Same reasoning.
SimonLarsen 38 minutes ago [-]
Two answers I can think of:
1. Believe it or not: some people are still not using AI.
2. AI generated websites tend to look very similar. Having a clean starting point and then tweaking the style to your liking avoids the obvious AI-stink.
xd1936 17 hours ago [-]
Happy to see this, now that my beloved PicoCSS has been deprecated. Sumi looks really nice!
Several of their new components are just classes, defeating the original purpose and contradicting the vision of Pico.
Why are the first one or two letters in headings wrapped in <em>, like the _Bl_ in "Blades"?
Why are they calling their Pico fork "anyblades/pico", when the original Pico author's post says "The Pico CSS name and logo are not covered by the MIT license. Please give your fork its own name, so users don’t confuse it with the original."?
I used a classless CSS framework once, for a project where I wanted a non-technical coworker to update an HTML file repeatedly throughout the week and then upload it to AWS/s3. I wanted it to be as simple for them as possible, to minimize errors, and it worked great.
I'm not sure what other use cases are, but it's also just true that limitations can be fun.
codazoda 15 hours ago [-]
Looks good!
I created a similar alternative, Neat CSS, a while back. I use it for tons of projects. It could probably use a fresh look from me to see if there's anything I want to update but it's been a stable "framework" for me. I didn't intend it to be classless, though it's mostly semantic, but I instead focused on keeping it small and tight. It's only 3KB.
Why would someone use this nowadays instead of just using AI? To me the purpose of these small css frameworks was to have a nice consistent UI quickly. What is the value of these frameworks now?
Same reasoning.
1. Believe it or not: some people are still not using AI.
2. AI generated websites tend to look very similar. Having a clean starting point and then tweaking the style to your liking avoids the obvious AI-stink.
https://picocss.com/docs/maintenance
It's not a direct replacement; I fixed a lot of annoyances from PicoCSS.
1. https://github.com/oxalorg/sakura
https://blades.dev/
Several of their new components are just classes, defeating the original purpose and contradicting the vision of Pico.
Why are the first one or two letters in headings wrapped in <em>, like the _Bl_ in "Blades"?
Why are they calling their Pico fork "anyblades/pico", when the original Pico author's post says "The Pico CSS name and logo are not covered by the MIT license. Please give your fork its own name, so users don’t confuse it with the original."?
The worst offender: What is going on with this nonsense: https://blades.dev/css/frameworks/
Please, just use a link. This has a destination, so making it masquerade as a button gives so many false affordances.
https://dohliam.github.io/dropin-minimal-css/
I'm not sure what other use cases are, but it's also just true that limitations can be fun.
I created a similar alternative, Neat CSS, a while back. I use it for tons of projects. It could probably use a fresh look from me to see if there's anything I want to update but it's been a stable "framework" for me. I didn't intend it to be classless, though it's mostly semantic, but I instead focused on keeping it small and tight. It's only 3KB.
Anyway, thought I'd share it here too.
https://neat.joeldare.com
Small bug, opened an issue here: https://github.com/vladocar/Sumi.css/issues/1