Is CSS Street not very good at team development?

Question

Is CSS Shortening Not Very Good In Team Development?

When several people are working on the same project. anyone can have CSS level knowledge at different levels, so some people may be confused about shrinking when they need any changes to css.

For example: 

Should I avoid this

 font: 1em/1.5em bold italic serif 

and use this

 font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5em; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; font-family: serif 

in team development? and which shortcuts are other CSS shortcuts that are not suitable for readability and which are good?

Answer 1

When writing code, I tend to be pretty verbose. When a code, such as css / js, is ported to production, it can easily be minimized / optimized automatically by script delivery, giving you the best of both worlds.

Answer 2

While obviously unpopular on SO, a couple is pointing out breaking things down into multiple lines in command scripts:

1) Clarity when using a control source. Individual lines that change in source control are often easier to manage and very clear when viewing changes.

2) Using tools such as firebug, etc., which correlate with exact line numbers, can be useful when you set properties, hunting, saving, reloading and one property of many in one line.

Answer 3

It depends on your team . Personally, my team loves them, is clean, laconic, and they are not so confusing.

I would say that padding: 0 0 5px 0; more confusing than your font example, because you need to know it from above, to the right, to the bottom, to the left ... with more abbreviation, you can read regardless of order and it’s easy to see what happens.

I would bet, even the average Word user could see your font example and find out what is happening, and this says a lot for clarity.

Answer 4

If a person is working on editing CSS files, he should be able to, at least Google, if this is in doubt. After enough time has seen the shorthand, this will be second nature to them. Moreover, they are likely to find it cumbersome to read 5 lines when they could read 1 (I know that I know) in order to understand what is happening. Being more detailed is not very good when you are trying to get a lot of information.

Readability issues, but its perception varies from person to person. I find the abbreviated expression is more readable, even if I need to do a Google search from time to time to make sure the order is correct. In Python, I would never have thought of not using @decorators or a list of concepts just because one of the notorious beginners might seem strange, it makes my code shorter and therefore more readable.

Hands for developers do not work. Make them suck and learn the language they get paid to create / read.

Answer 5

I tend to think of code as writing, I often read. Therefore, I think short arms are okay if they are obvious and often used, but I think it's best to avoid things with an odd ball. I consider myself a competent CSS coder, and I must admit that reducing the font / line-to-line is new to me.

Answer 6

Code for readability (suitable for the life of the project)

Use compilers, optimizers and compression for performance

This applies to almost any code, not just CSS.

Answer 7

Everything looks the same. If someone does not know how to look for the parameter value for the short version, they are in the wrong role. Also, the second takes up more bandwidth. I would use only a long form if you want to set a couple of parameters, not all of them

Answer 8

The more readable you can make your code, the better. Never assume any knowledge.