All these arguments for using visual builders, Sass, BEM, etc. is mostly about what makes CODERS' job "easy" and LAZY, and none of them are about what's right for USERS of the web and doing our job CORRECTLY!!!
Thing is, it's not really about easy or lazy, since as I've shown and you've discovered none of those systems actually make things easier, simpler, faster, and they introduce more to learn and create more work.
No, it's about the comfort of sticking with what they learned first, and staying with the mob for fear of standing out. That's the flaw of confirmation bias that those propaganda techniques I'm always mentioning creates in the mind.
Everyone says it's easy, so it must be true. Everyone says it helps with large scale collaboration, so it must be true. Everyone says it streamlines the workflow, so it must be true. Everyone says it is simpler and faster to work with than the underlying languages, so it must be true.
... no matter how many facts, examples, etc, prove the exact opposite. It's all glittering generalities and bandwagon; much akin to when a Christian says "2.4 billion people can't be wrong" as justification for their flavor of fairy tale... ignoring the other 5.1 billion who disagree. That's card stacking.
And you see it with these systems, where they use testimonials from people working at large companies, card stacking the userbase numbers to create bandwagon reinforced by echo-chambers they create using name calling, endless strings of glittering generalities mated to "it lets normal people do it" plain folks, and in many cases comparisons to how people think it should work to transfer that preconceived notion unto the projects.
That's all seven of the major propaganda techniques in action... and it is readily apparent that's what's going on if you know to look for it.
that garbage mentality I spewed all over is also how a lot of so-called experts are advocating, too, since I merely followed them so blindly
Don't feel too bad about it, you were just doing what everyone else does. The people who duped you were duped and deluded themselves, by people who were duped and deluded by people who were duped and deluded by people who when I started doing this stuff refused to abandon 1995 to 1998 style methodology. A presentational methodology and mindset that had no business ever being introduced to HTML, only came into existence because of how Nyetscape and Internut Exploder went to war over who could be the flashiest.
Techniques, methodologies, and mindsets HTML 4 strict tried to drag us kicking and screaming away from back towards HTML's original -- and insightful -- purpose. Hence why HTML 4 Strict (and by extension XHTML 1.0 Strict) never truly gained market traction, as the damage had already been done to the industry. Then along comes HTML 5 and so much of it is that same "do as you like" lassez-faire attitude -- the specification being more about documenting what can be done, and not what should be done. Something that anyone with an engineering background would recoil in horror at the thought of.
I mean I could use a grade 2 bolt to put the front suspension of a truck together, but that doesn't make it a good idea and the specifications of bolt grades and suspension say to use a grade 8 bolt for a reason. That's why it's called a specification.
... and why I put quotes around the word "specification" when referring to HTML 5. "laser"... "Alan Parson's Project", "Preparation H". I'm making air quotes with my fingers to imply sarcasm.
"Specification"
Because to be brutally frank, at this point the WhatWG and W3C wouldn't know a specification from the prize in a cracker jack box.
So it's hardly a shock that it's so easy to fall into the trap these various frameworks, tools, and alleged "shortcuts" lay out; even when they start out with good intentions it is hard not to get the feeling that at some point they went from "good idea" to marketing scam.
Though again a lot of that is just that the people creating these systems and those so fervently singing their praises didn't know enough HTML or CSS to have any idea just what good code, good practices, or even who to do things properly was. When you lack that fundamental understanding it is so ridiculously easy to believe the claims of your peers or to delude oneself into thinking you found a simpler way.
... as is evident from the fact that few if any of the things created by tools like SCSS, BEM, etc, actually even approaches good practices. This is even more evident when it comes to front end frameworks or off the shelf templates, where if you take the time to learn what HTML tags mean and are for, it is crystal clear the people creating these systems don't know the first blasted thing on the topic.
You show me most any codebase built using these "tools" by the people who created them or use them by choice, and I'll show you accessibility failings, layout concepts and goofy flashy nonsense that has zero business on a legitimate website, and utter complete gibberish HTML/CSS practices.
But because it's what beginners are often told to use first, they too are never exposed to the underlying language constructs and concepts that expose all this malarkey for the lies they promote. This follows them the whole way through being years in the industry and thinking they are somehow "experts", when in fact the only thing they've mastered is how to take something simple and make it harder.
... and then parrot, "No, it's easier this way" because again, it's all they know. The confirmation bias is already set in stone and is quite difficult to chisel away at.
Which is why you'll get people saying things like "It must have been my concept and not the tools", or "everyone else is succeeding with this, it must be me". Just like the people who get suckered by MLM's like Amway or Mary Kay, even as they lose their shirts. Or on the web side the scam that is "affiliate marketing" -- the brilliant idea that "hey, what if we remove the multi-level from MLM but still run the same hustle? With the web we can hit a larger base and cut out letting intermediaries on the pyramid skim their own share!"
No, no.... Affiliate marketing is legit... sure it is.
Like any other field, when you have a highly technical subject mated to the wants and desires of the common man, it becomes a free fire zone for every snake oil peddler out there; which is why it very quickly devolves to not about doing what's right, but about how much can I weasel out of the client's pocket for as little effort as possible. A business practice that long term always creates bubbles and bursts... which is why I still think we're overdue for the next big dotcom bust. When an industry is this saturated with lies and duplicitous practices, it isn't a question of if the bottom will fall out, but when.
Dan W.
I found this article which present a compelling case against Sass:
meiert.com/en/blog/no-css-preprocessors
His case:
I find it a nice addendum to Jason Knight's already compelling argument.
As for me, I've been practicing grouping selectors as I go. I find it perfectly feasible to skip Sass at this point, at least in my case.