I'm sorry, didn't want to appear aggressive either. Maybe when I wrote my comment I was influenced by the great number of negative comments here, but obviously,

I'm sorry, didn't want to appear aggressive either. Maybe when I wrote my comment I was influenced by the great number of negative comments here, but obviously, nothing personal! Maybe there is a lot of confusion also because the naming of this methodology. The whole "functional" thing. It's funny that the very same practice has also been called "Atomic CSS" and "Object-Oriented CSS (OOCSS)"(!). I would name it "Non-Cascading Style Sheets" because the whole point is actually giving away most of the "C" in "CSS". I was also thinking that another point of such negativity may be that to use it you have to somehow master all the CSS rules, where not-so-experienced developers may rely on some "trial and error" or some bad pratice (eg. adding many nested selectors) to achive the same result. I might be wrong. I remember that there are tools that throw a warning when a class is mutated (ie. overwritten by another rule) because you don't really want to - let's say - add a border when using something like "bg-gray-darker". Yes, this practice can be a great choice for component frameworks. But it's also great for rapid prototyping and designing UI components or whole web pages directly in the browser. And for templated HTML pages you can be more expressive using something like "profile-card: m-5 p-5 text-gray-light bg-gray-darker border border-gray-light" Where the "profile-card:" bit has no effect on the presentation but gives the code reader an insight of the markup. I actually used to do something like this at first during prototyping/designing, but then I stopped. Maybe just because at some point I became so accustomed that I was able to catch every part of the page at first sight.