Its performance was not just measurably worse, it was obvious as soon as I opened the revision on my phone.
Lesson learned: it's important to think twice before using most pseudo selectors
That sounds so cool! Do you have a version somewhere that I can take a look at? I always like fiddling with clever CSS, even if it is too clever for its own sake, as you managed to find out
And keep in mind, that pseudo selectors are not created equal. Things like :checked or :focused usually don't have that much of a performance impact
I think you're overestimating what I did though, the basic idea is this recreation.
https://codepen.io/wohlben/pen/gOGKejv
it was just a lot more elements in the navigation with subcategories etc, but basically the same methods
(remember to check the mobile view, as thats the one thats using most selectors. Though the desktop view is arguably better)
this recreation is probably very confusing though, as the only hint that there are more links hidden for the category are the missing corners - and there is nothing hinting you have to click the category names to show these hidden options. and i skimped on proper accessibility for this mockup, so the hidden options can't be selected without touch/mouse
The JS just emulates what opening the page would have done. It was SSR
I'm sure this hasn't been relevant for about 15 years. CSS rendering is _fast_.
This especially comes into play, if you deal with a lot of nested HTML elements or when you modify the site's HTML a lot.
It seems like > *+*, *:not(first-child), *:nth-child(1+n) and *:last-child { ...revert... } are all equivalent. I would be curious to know which is most efficient.
(this semi helpful advice brought to you by mst's complete lack of front-end chops meaning concrete help will have to come from somebody else ;)
