7 ms·

Looks promising -- I have been using Simple.css: https://simplecss.org/ https://simplecss.org/ A cursory look suggests that matcha.css is a little more advance

• aitchnyu 2y ago
  And looks more 2020s than 2010s. The prejudice was imparted to me from other devs and I comply to avoid unfavorable first impressions with my software.
• dsego 2y ago
  There is a whole slew of classless (semantic) css libraries. Some examples: - https://andybrewer.github.io/mvp/ - https://oxal.org/projects/sakura/ - https://yegor256.github.io/tacit/ - https://chimera-demo.vercel.app/ - https://watercss.kognise.dev/ - https://missing.style/ Alas, matcha doesn't even look that promising. There is no demo page to quickly see styled elements, the color palette is garish and the default button hover is illegible, with dark background on dark text. It certainly needs more polish.
  • lowlighter 2y ago
    I actually love sakura, but I wanted something more complete like having syntax-highlighting styles out-of-the-box and still have some utilities classes. The demo page is supposed to be the website itself which is intended as a documentation too (you also have a basic website previewer at the begining). It definitely needs some more polish, but I wasn't expecting this being posted on HN this early
    • dsego 2y ago
      Ah, completely missed the documentation being the demo, didn't want to sound that negative. There is definitely a lot of hard work put into it.