Respectfully, I'm finding the value of this blog post extremely difficult to understand. The author's arguments against gap just don't make sense and I question the logic of their entire design philosophy - the author dismisses gap and says 'The parent is in complete control and the child elements have no say in what gap is at any given moment."
...but that's exactly how a sound design system SHOULD work. Structural components (containers etc) SHOULD be in complete control of child distribution. I simply cannot imagine what a nightmare having to manage margin at an atomic component level for everything would be instead of just spelling out a few container components for them all to live in.
Furthermore the resistance to using the two display types that utilise the gap property (flex + grid) is absolutely bizarre. No sane person would avoid these tools as web dev without them is messy and utterly maddening, so this resistance makes no sense at all.
Simply: gap wasn't an option when this was initially conceived.
The author's arguments against gap
I don't think it's a argument against gap. It's that this technique is advantageous in some situations. It is stated later on that grid is his choice for bespoke layouts.
what a nightmare having to manage margin at an atomic component level for everything would be instead of just spelling out a few container components
This is the essence of the technique. Specifying `* + *` allows controlling the layout of adjacent elements, rather than an atomic element. I think this would all make more sense after reading some of the precedent material: https://alistapart.com/article/axiomatic-css-and-lobotomized.... (It's actually pretty succinct, so rehashing it here wouldn't add anything.)
Comments
Respectfully, I'm finding the value of this blog post extremely difficult to understand. The author's arguments against gap just don't make sense and I question the logic of their entire design philosophy - the author dismisses gap and says 'The parent is in complete control and the child elements have no say in what gap is at any given moment."
...but that's exactly how a sound design system SHOULD work. Structural components (containers etc) SHOULD be in complete control of child distribution. I simply cannot imagine what a nightmare having to manage margin at an atomic component level for everything would be instead of just spelling out a few container components for them all to live in.
Furthermore the resistance to using the two display types that utilise the gap property (flex + grid) is absolutely bizarre. No sane person would avoid these tools as web dev without them is messy and utterly maddening, so this resistance makes no sense at all.
Simply: gap wasn't an option when this was initially conceived.
I don't think it's a argument against gap. It's that this technique is advantageous in some situations. It is stated later on that grid is his choice for bespoke layouts.
This is the essence of the technique. Specifying `* + *` allows controlling the layout of adjacent elements, rather than an atomic element. I think this would all make more sense after reading some of the precedent material: https://alistapart.com/article/axiomatic-css-and-lobotomized.... (It's actually pretty succinct, so rehashing it here wouldn't add anything.)