[addy_osmani]

Thanks for the feedback. We used BEM as we find it helps with the long-term maintainability of CSS/SASS codebases (there's also copy/paste support on all of our snippets). That said, if you find the use of BEM a turn-off, we welcome folks just taking our styles and adapting them to the naming scheme that makes most sense for them. Anything that helps.

[Akkuma]

I was overall impressed with what I saw, but when I saw the amount of classes required to achieve a simple button my jaw hit the ground at the level of commitment to BEM that bordered on what I'd consider absurd. To be fair, one could create their own snippets in an editor or in the case of React their own components to remove the need for all the boilerplate.

Now, a simple question is why would I want to use this over materializecss.com? I saw this from the FAQ:

>That said, the large, diverse number of implementations available are often quite liberal with their interpretation of the spec (not their fault!) and their opinions don’t always reflect what the Material Design team would consider ‘correct’.

It doesn't specifically point out what these guys are doing wrong and I personally can't see much that is being done differently. Are there any specific examples you can point me toward?

Why make a completely new project rather than working with the communities out there? If the spec is too liberal it should be updated and issues posted under these projects, so these projects can properly follow the spec, unless they specifically choose to deviate from it.

[dominotw]

Great work Addy!!. This made my day.

Any idea when we can expect these to make it to polymer 1.0. Basic components like dropdowns/cards are missing atm .