mddw

I am afraid this quote is an urban legend. It never existed.

!important is the only way to force a CSS rule to be more specific than an inline style.

As such, it has legitimates uses in rare cases (a responsive websites with some javascript style changes specific to a breakpoint per exemple.)

I would personally say that what divides good and bad guys is opinionated though.

600€ to 800€ / day (depending on conditions) + VAT, I work in France (not Paris.) Remote only.

Mainly web sites, some webapps, some native apps.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point, but why do you use Facebook comments, displayed in a whooping 11px ?

What ? Of course they should. It's all about choice. There are a shitload of standards and a limited amount of man-hour.

Ahah, the mythical ordinary user.

I know some users. I don't know if they are ordinary. I think they are. My parents in their 50's. A grandmother of 80. Some friends which are 30 with a very average computer literacy.

Every one of them took fast with the iPad (that's how Apple is good), but no one of 'em'll fill 16gb of space.

Which is a (cool but) fake website. I've never seen a redesign keeping HTML code. Even when the code is very good and the separation well done.

Now bootstrap is important, yesterday it was the 360 grid, tomorrow it'll be another hype bandwagon.

First, Bootstrap did not standardize anything. It's a biased perspective to think so : most websites and most developpers don't even know about bootstrap. And those who know about it do not necessarily agree with it (per exemple I hate their JS coding style.)

Second, the myth about "changing your design without touching HTML". Sure, there're some cases where it's possible, but by experience it won't happen. Never. Sadly (or not), a redesign is always coupled with some HTML changes. Bootstrap does not change anything.

So, I think Bootstrap is far less important than, say, Wordpress was. It's a cool tool, useful for a "design dumb" like me to pull a quick demo without a true designer, but in the end it makes boring websites with boring code. It's also a overhyped tool, which won't survive (along with the whole stupid OOCSS thing.)

What is wrong is that I can't zoom on your website. Typos won't scale.

It's really a big accessibility problem. I can't read this article without using the Chrome inspector to change styles.

And I'm far from being visually Impaired.

Sorry, but it must be said.

I would be really curious to know the app vs website usage stats of LinkedIn.

It's awesome, but only useful on very specific animation-heavy projects. Otherwise it's quite overkill.

classList won't work in IE < 10. XHR with promise is quite verbose. Transitions won't work in IE < 10. etc. These were examples, not a complete case list.

What's the point to use shims or polyfills if it means including some others libraries ?

JQuery is not slow. If you .addClass() two hundred divs, sure. But for basic DOM manipulations, it's fine.

JQuery is not heavy. 32kb. It may be in cache. You'll likely gain that twice 32kb by optimizing your png.

This anti-JQuery war is a silly fad started by people who don't make websites.

And as per arguments like "a fadein should not be mandatory blablabla", explain it to the client. It may work. Or it may not.

"I encourage you to give it a shot. Write your next application, library or just code for fun without jQuery. "

Been there, done that. And it's a pain in the *

You'll find yourself needing a method to add or remove classes eficiently. So you'll rewrite .addClass() and .removeClass()

Then you'll need a clean way to make Ajax and callbacks. You'll rewrite .ajax() and .when()

Then you'll need to fade something in all browser. So you'll rewrite .animate()

Ad lib.

JQuery Minified and GZipped is 35k (not 90 as the op said, ignoring the gziping.) JQuery is cached in most browsers. The performance hit is not worth the pain of re-inventing the wheel.

The problem is not JQuery, it's bad code. Bad code won't magically disappear in vanilla JS.

You can't have multiple URL leading to the same information because of SEO. Well, you can (with canonical meta and stuff), but it's not an ideal practice. It is often better to cater to robots rather than to humans. A sad truth, highlighting Google's failures.