>We addressed this by generating atomic CSS at build time. Atomic CSS has a logarithmic growth curve because it’s proportional to the number of unique style declarations rather than to the number of styles and features we write.
I've always wondered... has anyone checked to see if this strategy of CSS (which AFAICT is slowly growing in popularity, since it's a super simple minification trick) ends up costing more in bandwidth?
It seems like it would, because 1) you frequently need multiple classes per html element, and 2) those html classes need to be sent on every page load, where CSS caches well if used "normally". I can see it being smaller on any individual page, especially with class-name minifying, but across many? And infinite scrolling loading many more elements?
I've always wondered... has anyone checked to see if this strategy of CSS (which AFAICT is slowly growing in popularity, since it's a super simple minification trick) ends up costing more in bandwidth?
It seems like it would, because 1) you frequently need multiple classes per html element, and 2) those html classes need to be sent on every page load, where CSS caches well if used "normally". I can see it being smaller on any individual page, especially with class-name minifying, but across many? And infinite scrolling loading many more elements?