# mixins Published articles for mixins. This is one page of public article previews, not the complete archive. Follow Next page to continue. Summaries are not the original full articles. ## Autocomplete for Behaviors in PhpStorm with Mixins & Veneers DevFeed: [Autocomplete for Behaviors in PhpStorm with Mixins & Veneers]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: andrew@nystudio107.com (Andrew Welch) Published: 2022-12-20T15:42:00Z Content type: tutorial Language: en Sources: [nystudio107 | Articles on modern web development.]() Topics: [phpstorm](), [code-completion](), [Content Management System](), [Development]() Tags: [added](), [autocomplete](), [behaviors](), [cms](), [code](), [code-analysis](), [code-completion](), [completion](), [craft](), [insights](), [intellisense](), [learn](), [mixins](), [phpstorm](), [project](), [using](), [veneers]() ### AI overview A tutorial on restoring PhpStorm IntelliSense code completion for behaviors added to Craft CMS projects. It explains how to use mixins and veneer classes so PhpStorm can recognize dynamically added properties and methods through static code analysis. ### Source excerpt Learn how to get PhpStorm IntelliSense code completion for Behaviors added to your Craft CMS project using Mixins & Veneers ## Why Do React Hooks Rely on Call Order? DevFeed: [Why Do React Hooks Rely on Call Order?]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Published: 2018-12-13T00:00:00Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Dan Abramov]() Topics: [hooks](), [React Hooks](), [React]() Tags: [classes](), [hooks](), [mixins](), [react](), [react-hooks]() ### AI overview This personal article explains why React Hooks rely on a persistent call index between component re-renders. It discusses the design rationale, the ability to use Hooks repeatedly in a component, and the implications of that controversial choice. ### Source excerpt Lessons learned from mixins, render props, HOCs, and classes. ## Implementing PhotoShop font sizes and tracking in CSS, points to pixels conversion DevFeed: [Implementing PhotoShop font sizes and tracking in CSS, points to pixels conversion]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Stanko Published: 2016-09-08T00:00:00Z Content type: tutorial Language: en Sources: [Stanko Tadić]() Topics: [CSS](), [Sass](), [modern web development]() Tags: [conversion](), [css](), [function](), [mixins](), [photoshop](), [pixels](), [points](), [sass](), [scss](), [tracking]() ### AI overview A tutorial on converting Photoshop font sizes from points to CSS pixels and translating Photoshop tracking into CSS letter spacing using Sass functions and mixins. It explains when to use each construct and provides example Sass and generated CSS. ### Source excerpt We've all been there - trying to get right font sizes from PhotoShop to CSS. Designers usually work with points, which are used in the print, but not common on the web. They also use term tracking a lot, which is actually only a letter spacing with different units. You can recalculate everything by hand and try to keep track of it. But we can use the goodies of SCSS to make that process a bit easier. Point to pixel ratio is 1pt = 1.333333px. We'll create SASS function to do conversion for us. And PhotoShop tracking works relative to the font size. One point of tracking is 1/1000 of the font size. For this one we'll create a mixin. // Converts pt to px @function pt-to-px($size-in-points){ @return #{ round($size-in-points * 1.333333) }px; } // Adds letter spacing to match photoshop tracking @mixin tracking($ps-tracking){ letter-spacing: #{ $ps-tracking / 1000 }em; } // Usage .Component { @include tracking(-5); font-size: pt-to-px(20); line-height: pt-to-px(30); } This will generate following CSS: .Component { letter-spacing: -.005em; font-size: 15px; line-height: 23px; } Note that function and mixin can do pretty much the same job. But it makes more sense to use mixins when including complete styles, and functions to return values. So conversion makes sense to be a function, as we can use it for font size, line height or anything else. Conversion of tracking to letter spacing is including a specific style, so keep it in a mixin. ## Ruby and .NET: Comparing Language Features and Developer Communities DevFeed: [Ruby and .NET: Comparing Language Features and Developer Communities]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Published: 2011-08-29T00:00:00Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Tim Kellogg]() Topics: [Ruby](), [.NET](), [C#](), [F#](), [Python]() Tags: [c-sharp](), [expression](), [extension](), [f-sharp](), [linq](), [mixins](), [monkey-patching](), [net](), [python](), [ruby](), [unit-tests]() ### AI overview The author compares Ruby and .NET, highlighting Ruby's mixins, monkey patching, REPL, and blocks alongside C#'s type safety, LINQ, and expression trees. The author concludes that neither platform is inherently better, but prefers the Ruby community. ### Source excerpt Since college I've always been a huge fan of dynamic languages. I was really into Python for a long time and in the past year or so I've picked up Ruby. It's well known that the open source/dynamic language world has always looked down on the .NET/Java world as some sort of inferior. While having a conversation with a colleague about ruby versus .NET I stumbled on a conclusion.Ruby has some great features like mixins, monkey patching, a REPL. I also love how blocks make closures such an accessible and natural way to program. Ruby makes easy things easy and hard things fun.On the other hand, C# is one of the most beautiful typesafe languages (although F# is gaining favor with me). Linq and expression trees provide functionality that you literally cannot reproduce in dynamic languages (it requires knowledge of types, which dynamic languages theoretically shouldn't care about). With the crazy stuff that people are doing with expression trees (building SQL statements, mapping objects, selecting properties, etc) it makes it hard to say I'd rather be doing ruby.While C# has some analogous ruby constructs (extension methods are kind of like a lesser form of monkey patching), it still suffers from some of the classical faults of static languages (there can be a lot of extra code just to deal with types and to play nicely with the compiler). At the same time, the compiler also writes tests for you (a contract states you will have these methods, yet in ruby you can't ever be completely sure they'll actually be there. Something that you'd have to write unit tests for in ruby).The conclusion I came to was that, at this point in time, there really isn't a compelling reason why ruby is better than .NET or vice versa. Except for one thing - the communities. The ruby community is nearly too much fun. In Boulder, where I live, there are several companies that host regular hackfests. There are also annual ruby conventions where people get together, socialize, and share new ideas. In