I mean, these days almost every JS developer use some kind of linter - why would you not use a linter for CSS? Literally nothing to lose since you can set the rules as relaxed as you want.
PS: I set it to 3 - Using good convention like SuitCSS I have never found I needed more nesting. Usually you think about a problem and find a simpler way to do it.
TLDR If you use any of the good practices for CSS such as BEM or BEM-like you don't have lots of nesting anyway.
And I like how the article mentions as an example `ul article ul` and how to solve it by adding a symbol :is() to be able to nest, and it's literally the one thing you don't want to do anyway, which is a selector like `ul article ul` (as per BEM methodology). Instead `.list .article .article-list` as a veyr poor example doesn´t need the special "fix" the article mentions.
https://stylelint.io/user-guide/rules/max-nesting-depth/
I mean, these days almost every JS developer use some kind of linter - why would you not use a linter for CSS? Literally nothing to lose since you can set the rules as relaxed as you want.
PS: I set it to 3 - Using good convention like SuitCSS I have never found I needed more nesting. Usually you think about a problem and find a simpler way to do it.
https://github.com/suitcss/suit/blob/master/doc/naming-conve...
TLDR If you use any of the good practices for CSS such as BEM or BEM-like you don't have lots of nesting anyway.
And I like how the article mentions as an example `ul article ul` and how to solve it by adding a symbol :is() to be able to nest, and it's literally the one thing you don't want to do anyway, which is a selector like `ul article ul` (as per BEM methodology). Instead `.list .article .article-list` as a veyr poor example doesn´t need the special "fix" the article mentions.