> Things like that (CSS into JS/ typed JS/Elm) are done because the developers are not competent enough in their field, and instead of learning about it, they try to create their own solution for it
Broadly calling developers incompetent because they've developed/use tools that you don't like is not "disagreement," it's just an ad-hominem. It has no place in a technical discussion.
When the OP replies that he can do that in CSS or Sass, smart guy then moves on to new argument - naming.
Reading interactions between 2 people with different well reasoned opinions on the same issue is fantastic and can be illuminating.
Reading curt regurgitation from people who don't have anything worthwhile to add to the convo is beyond frustrating.
EDIT: What I mean here is that the foundations of the web weren't designed for application development and are missing some crucial bits and pieces like encapsulation. The tooling necessary to encapsulate CSS in a way that works with every browser is complicated, and if you've only worked on small to medium projects it can be hard to see the need for such complication.