Are you a floater or a flexer?

[Melooon]

Back in the yonder days of websites, when you wanted to align items side by side instead of vertically (or center them), you would use CSS floats 

Code

/* Center a div with float: */
div {
  float: left;
  max-width: 600px;
  margin: auto;
}

These days the hip kids seem to all be about CSS flexes 

Code

/* Center a div with flex: */
div {
  display: flex;
  justify-content: center;
}

I'm curious whats most common today, are you a floater or a flexer? 

(also as a disclaimer, in the yonder yonder days people would use tables, but we don't talk about that)

[mortaki]

today I learned you can center a div with float 

I've never used flex either, so here's where I confess that none of my divs are actually centered. I just fiddle with the margins until they look centered.

I also don't use grid unless I'm modifying a template that uses it. nor position:absolute... so how am I positioning things???

hell if I know, I just do a thing until it works leave me alone 

[larvapuppy]

I used float before I understood how to use flex, but now that I've practiced flex a good amount I prefer it. I think since I want my site to be somewhat usable on mobile, flex suits it a lot better, and I actually find flex a lot easier to control/predict the outcome of than float.

I saw someone link this on here before (and that's how I learned) but just for convenience here is a game that helps you learn flexbox: https://flexboxfroggy.com/

[IndigoGolem]

Neither, i learned HTML studying ancient texts that are old enough to recommend tables for page layouts. But my site is mostly just text, so it matters little.

[ValyceNegative]

I am a... table-er *gets pulled off stage*
In places where I need to do elaborate builds that are also screen responsive, I tend to use a bit of everything depending on context: I find myself using flex more but I don't see it as the true single solution for every layout ever. I've also tried out grids and they do have advantages, for example. I think a coder should get handy with all the options in case there's a need for one specific layout instead of the other (and overall it doesn't hurt having general knowledge of your coding language of choice).

But yeah no joke, if I want to whip out somethibg really quick really simple that doesn't have to follow responsiveness... I do the worst thing a webmaster could do and just use tables. XD t-they were acceptable in 2005, I swear! XD

[moeghost]

floater one hundred percent, i sometimes use tables but i just think that using a couple floating divs takes up a few less code lines which is favorable to me, at least. i guess i just never thought to use or even learn flex because float is what i learned first and it stuck. me and float:left; + float:right; against the world wide web!!

[fairyrune]

I actually find flex a lot easier to control/predict the outcome of than float.

100%! i feel a bit like i'm gambling when i use float. i used to, though, when i first learned to code! nowadays, i like flex for its stability. also, it means i can space things out super easily.

if i'm just aligning something, though? float. or margin: 0 auto 

i definitely agree with the sentiment that none are a one-size-fits-all solution of sorts. it depends on the context... but it's interesting to see how many ways you can do the same thing with code.

[futurearcana]

Flex & grid all the way. I've been at this enough to have done it all, fromt tables to floats and when flex came around my layouts finally stopped breaking 

Whatever works tho, if your layout is slightly broken it just adds to the charm!

Also I don't know how I feel about flex being able to basically replace any other existing layout systems without even breaking a sweat. Maybe this was how it was supposed to be from the start? 

[littlelum]

After a quick look at my CSS file, I used float 5 times and flex 9 times. I've never really paid attention to that, it was more of whatever came to mind first.

[Melooon]

I actually find flex a lot easier to control/predict the outcome of than float

I think that's what puts me off about flexes; I really enjoy the uncertainty about what a float will do; its like casting a magic spell and hoping you got the words right

I do the worst thing a webmaster could do and just use tables. XD t-they were acceptable in 2005, I swear! XD

If its any help, the forums main theme uses table layouts They have quirks, but once you get into the flow of using them, they do have a unique quality that you don't get with any other system.

[dogbrain]

i used to commit the cardinal sin of position:absoluting everything before i knew better, but then i learned flex was a thing and i pretty much exclusively use it now LOL. i really like how versatile it is, and it’s way wayyyyyyyy better for making pages accessible for most aspect resolutions. i actually didn’t know you could achieve a similar effect with float until now! i’ll have to try it just for fun 

[candycanearter07]

I used to be a chronic flexer and used display: settings WAY too much, but with the tearing down and redesigning of my site to its bare bones, I have been using float a lot more. IMO, display:absolute and the like just makes it more frustrating to code and make elements line up properly, and float looks cleaner...

[KiwiMeowo]

When I flex, I feel my best

I think I've always been using flex, and only used float only if I want to put one div on the left/right. Flex is very flexible (heh) in my opinions, I use it for my layout columns, lists, galleries etc.

[Furbisms]

I'm a floater because I first learned HTML/CSS ages ago and so my habits aren't entirely up to date lol. I want to learn flex because it does genuinely seem good but for some reason the idea is mildly overwhelming and intimidating. I don't know why! I'm sure it will be worth it when I figure it out, I have a page on my site I want to re-do with it and I need to stop procrastinating lol.

[xwindows]

I eschew CSS/MovingGoalpost by the matter of principles (1)(2), and my main browser also predates CSS/MovingGoalpost's flexbox specification; so I have not and will never use flex layout on any of my own sites.

This means I use layout rules from CSS 1.0, CSS 2.0, and CSS 2.1: floats are what I make uses of sometimes, along with `display: inline-block` in combination with `text-justify:`, and a bunch of others. Because want my website to be able to "time-travel" (i.e. reliably viewable with browsers from the past and the future), I make do with these limitations as well as occasionally compromising my designs to make them fit. If I encounter a scenario where a complex layout really, really, can't be avoided; I'd fall back to the old standby: HTML <table>.


(1) CSS/MovingGoalpost (called by its proponents "CSS3"), like HTML/MovingGoalpost (usually euphemized as "HTML5"): it is a moving-goalpost specification with no real version number and change at breakneck pace; basically designed to be unimplementable from ground-up by any party outside of "web oligarchs" circle (let alone a single-developer effort common in libre software world) before it changed. I don't call such thing a "standard".

(2) Technically I do still allow myself to sprink some cosmetic rules from CSS/MovingGoalpost onto my sites; under a strict rule that my site layout must not break down, degrade, or have it usability hampered in any way when I viewed it under browsers that don't support CSS/MovingGoalpost. So no structural stuffs like flex layout, aspect ratio controls, newer length units; mobile media query ought to mirror CSS2 handheld style, and even seemingly-cosmetics things like text/box shadows have to be designed strategically to stay readable/distinguishable when shadow disappear etc.