Whenever I read such an article, I wonder why experienced people like myself don’t take the time to write ourselves… maybe we should write a lot more.
This 5.4k claps article is a half baked article of low quality. It takes general information that is already available, taps some click savvy content by comparing a new CSS feature with a fixed grid system like Bootstrap or Foundation and praising it like it’s the new nirvana of web development.
Experienced developers don’t really use Bootstrap. They use pre-processors like SASS or Stylus with a grid system like Jeet.gs or Susy. They are extremely flexible and backwards compatible. You can have multiple grid systems on a page, they don’t need fixed classes and they don’t produce legacy code. Most of the time flexbox is also a very good choice. Tell your readers that, while mentioning the CSS Grid. Tell they about their options, create something they can tinker with. Code within screenshots are impractical. There’s CodePen or tens of other sites that allow readers to fork your code and tinker with something right away.
No one in his right mind would use CSS Grid as main layout without fallback. No production website out-there does that. Because it would degrade user experience.
This article is just emphasising the existence of CSS Grid layout suggesting not maintaining backwards compatibility. Why? Because researching stuff takes time, because writing good articles is hard. It takes days. This one was easy to write, easy to get a few thousand claps. Just because the source has a good reputation. Sometimes, reputable sources push trough low quality content.
We should have less of these articles. Not more. Provide some content that your readers can use to advance in their field, to better themselves, not just a click trap.
You might disagree with me and my bluntness… and that’s OK. Everybody on the Internet has an opinion nowadays.
Have a nice day.