Popular posts

Hi Dave! Good question!

I don't use BEM much myself but I definitely see the value in it. It seems like you're spending a lot of time on naming but having rules for naming structure that points to the architecture means you actually have to spend less time deciding what to name things, not more. And that people can look at your class name and all of a sudden understand a lot of information. That's great naming. That said, I was more a fan of OOCSS approaches so that I wasn't typing quite as long and making use of mixins and nested classes for scoping and reuse.

I think some of the reasons we developed BEM have worked themselves out with some of the tools we have available to us. Personally, I've been super jiving on scoped styles in Vue. I'm still writing styles in a way that feels really comfortable to me, and they automatically exist with the same structure that BEM was somewhat abstractly creating with names.

There are a lot of tools like Vue's scoped styles. CSS-in-JS is like this, CSS Modules, it's precursor. All have their place. I think there will probably be some developments in the direction of organizing CSS outside of JavaScript tooling along with what we're making with frameworks, because the web is a big tent and frameworks aren't the right answer for everyone.

If I had to make a bet, (and all this is is a bet), I would guess that people's interest in BEM itself will decrease, but it will become the foundation for some other tools or principles that will be very popular.

Hey Sarah, thanks for answering!

I pretty much think the same. We have a guy in at the moment who is so convinced about it, but all I see is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Loads of drawbacks for really very little gain IMHO, and yes, that's why I asked - I think it will be replaced pretty soon with better tools that play to CSS and HTML's (and now JS's!) strengths!

Thanks, take care

:D