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
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.)