HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
colourgarden
avalanche
CSS2015–2016
colourgarden / avalanche

avalanche

Superclean, powerful, responsive, Sass-based, BEM-syntax CSS grid system

2Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
619GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Superclean, powerful, responsive, Sass-based, BEM-syntax CSS grid system

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-12-16 17:33:08 UTC to 2016-06-02 09:56:30 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

012015-12-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-12-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsDec 142015-12-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-12-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-12-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-04 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-04 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-18 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-18 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-25 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-25 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-08 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-02-08 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-15 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-02-15 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-02-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-29 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-02-29 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-03-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsMar 72016-03-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-03-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-03-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-04-04 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-04-04 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-04-11 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-04-11 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-04-18 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-04-18 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-04-25 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-04-25 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-02 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-02 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-09 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-09 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-16 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-16 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-23 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-23 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-30 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-30 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-06 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMay 30

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Dec 142015-12-14 00:00:00 UTC2015-12-21 00:00:00 UTC110
Dec 212015-12-21 00:00:00 UTC2015-12-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 282015-12-28 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-04 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 42016-01-04 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 112016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-18 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 182016-01-18 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-25 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 252016-01-25 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 12016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-08 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 82016-02-08 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-15 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 152016-02-15 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-22 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 222016-02-22 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-29 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 292016-02-29 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 72016-03-07 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 142016-03-14 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 212016-03-21 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 282016-03-28 00:00:00 UTC2016-04-04 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 42016-04-04 00:00:00 UTC2016-04-11 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 112016-04-11 00:00:00 UTC2016-04-18 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 182016-04-18 00:00:00 UTC2016-04-25 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 252016-04-25 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-02 00:00:00 UTC000
May 22016-05-02 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-09 00:00:00 UTC000
May 92016-05-09 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-16 00:00:00 UTC000
May 162016-05-16 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-23 00:00:00 UTC000
May 232016-05-23 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-30 00:00:00 UTC000
May 302016-05-30 00:00:00 UTC2016-06-06 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
Read the rest
full list. I haven't bothered to sit down and actually assess whether these flexbox grids actually differ from each other (my gut says that it's not possible for them to differ too much). My gut also tells me that there has to be an apex, an optimal Flex-based grid from which there can be no improvement. I think a big part of the problem of why websites all look a bit similar is because they're all developed using Bootstrap, Bourbon or Foundation, and apparently on the rare occasion where a front-end framework is not used, an offshoot or "heavily-inspired by" alternative is used instead. Nobody is thinking about what /could/ be, but rather what can be done in the least time to produce the best approximation of a contemporary website. Nobody wants to push the boundaries. Maybe we've reached an optimal paradigm for the design and layout of websites. I don't think so. I always implement my own CSS, mainly because I really don't like carrying frameworks around. If I need all of a framework's features, I'll consider using it. Since I never need all of a framework's freatures, that never happens. If I ever do need a full front-end framework's worth of features, here's a framework that seems flexible, modular and solid to me: http://www.basscss.com/ and if you want a great grid, look at this: http://peterramsing.github.io/lost/ and if you want to wait for a more powerful future grid tool, investigate the CSS Grid Spec: http://gridbyexample.com/ http://gridbyexample.com/examples/page-layout/ http://abookapart.com/products/get-ready-for-css-grid-layout https://24ways.org/2015/grid-flexbox-box-alignment-our-new-s... https://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2015/11/03/three-years-w... https://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2015/04/14/grid-layout-a...
In Bulma: Modern CSS framework based on Flexbox

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.