Honestly its getting rarer and rarer to find things like this, most things that reasonable people want to do "just work."
You have to go to considerable effort to come up with a case like this.
You have to go to considerable effort to come up with a case like this.
And this exposes the problem with the current state of the art: yes, you can probably get flexbox to do what you want [@] if you know how. But if you don't know how, trying to figure it out is still very hard. You should be able to write:
<center>stuff</center>
<vertical-center>stuff</vertical-center>
---
[@] What if I want to put something in the lower left or upper right hand corner?
You're always centering children with respect to something, and you specify the fact that you want children centered on the thing you're centering them in, rather than the elements themselves. This makes more sense, in my opinion, and as said in the sibling comment, it's two simple rules.
I do a tonne of flexbox and grid in my day-to-day, and these complaints are quite simply out of date. Almost any layout in CSS these days can be done easily and intuitively.
Just like <center> works, but vertically. You don't need <foo><bar>content</bar></foo> for horizontal centering. I consider it a layering violation to have to do that nesting.
If you are learning CSS in 2018, then there is little chance that you didn't encounter flexbox and its capabilities. Nowadays there are many good, crossbrowser solutions for common problems, but I have to agree, intuition is not a feature of CSS.
This is a gross abuse of html, but if you really want that syntax, you can have it.
I can't say I understand all the complaining here. You want to make $200K a year sitting at a desk, but learning flexbox or googling when you need it is too much effort?
And my complaint is that I believe that computing should be accessible to everyone, and that simple things should not be made difficult just so that an elite guild can command above-market wages to fix problems that they themselves created. I don't believe in broken-windows economics.
But at least you are entertaining.
Who first tested and implemented CSS? Browser programmers.
These days it's under the control of committee. I think I would disagree with the notion that CSS devs are the ones to blame in this case. Sure, there's lots of blame to share for the problems. To imply that CSS developers intentionally forced it to be complicated for purposes of job security is laughable.
After all, CSS is not C++.
Im tired of programmers who've become experts in building structures by ramming screws into wood with a hammer claiming that all is well with the world when you have powerful hammers and screws.
I think we have a whole generation of front end programmers who haven't seen a screw driver.
If you want to lower left align you set align-items and justify-content to flex-end and flex-start. For upper right, flip those. (if you’ve changed flex-direction those will need to shuffle around.)
I seriously don't understand why having a different tag for every possible alignment would be somehow easier or more discoverable than just using css rules. Novices are going to have to be looking stuff up either way- I get the concern about discoverability but I strongly doubt anyone is just typing tags to see what works.