> That brings with it the problem of naming a thousand things in a consistent way that everyone on your team needs to understand and remember, otherwise you end up with tons of duplicated classes, parallel systems, and bike shedding. Have we, as an industry, not felt this pain often enough yet? Do we really need to keep banging our head against the wall to figure out it does hurt?

Of course. It's obviously better to have 10,000 different names that are all loosely, but not exactly the same as the CSS property they're trying to represent.

> And even if you just copy-paste the same class strings all over the codebase, transport compression will eliminate that pretty much entirely.

The client still has to decompress it and waste processing power parsing all the repeated text.

I for one do not understand what is so difficult about making a team internal decision about how some "component" (here in quotes, as I am actually thinking of an HTML subtree with specific purpose somewhere on an HTML page) is going to be named, and then give it that name as CSS class. Are people never talking with each other? Are people unable to grep a code base, before making up a new name? And how many similar but not same purpose things do you have on your pages, that this becomes a serious problem? Or is it just a discipline problem? People can name hundreds of useless OOP abstraction classes, but cannot be bothered to think of a good name for a "component" on a web page?

I mean, come on, there is usually tons of context and team internal language for the new thing to build and to talk about it, distinguishing it from the old thing that was already built.

And if that's too hard, then allow the design department to name the things they design and notify them about any clashes. They must have a design language anyway.

CSS modules solve all of these problems.