3 ms·
The render time point is misleading. It can be slower but even on low end devices, CSS is so insanely fast, you would need an HTML source in the tens of MB's ra
by yurishimo 6y ago
The render time point is misleading. It can be slower but even on low end devices, CSS is so insanely fast, you would need an HTML source in the tens of MB's range to cause noticeable performance problems. Also, CSS classes do make that even less of a problem. Inline styles are fast enough, and classes are faster by default, so Tailwind wins there.
Page load times are interesting, but again, unless you're loading an insane amount of data from the server, it will never be a real issue.
Some sort of component architecture solves the problem you bring up w/ duplication. You should never be writing the same thing 100x over. JS frameworks all render 100's of the same component with the same attributes and performance is fine for 99% of real use cases.
The downsides for Tailwind all revolve around personal preference and how your team organizes a project. There is no performance hit (unless you ship the entire un-purged CSS file to production, even then, it's minimal).
- nomel 6y ago> you would need an HTML source in the tens of MB's range to cause noticeable performance problems. What? Do you ever leave the city? It seems like that’s an unsupported use case any many developers minds.