3 ms·

OK, let's say you have a "styled box to hold a blurb of content" and in Framework A it's a single class: "callout". But in framework B, it's called "box". You

OK, let's say you have a "styled box to hold a blurb of content" and in Framework A it's a single class: "callout". But in framework B, it's called "box". You can switch your element from "callout" to "box" and likely move on. But if your element is nothing more than twenty utility classes, good luck with that. Similarly, if you have a custom class in your stylesheet using normal CSS properties you wrote alongside Framework A, you can use that same custom class with Framework B with little to no modification because it's "real" CSS. If instead your custom class is twenty "@apply" statements using utility classes, good luck with that. So again I say: Tailwind is fundamentally incompatible with every other CSS framework/no framework.

aidos 6y ago
Again, this doesn't make much sense to me. Assuming that we're talking about 3 systems where the html is exactly the same between them, and we just want to add a single class on the outer element in order to style the whole component. I can do that with Tailwind. .box { @apply m-4 bg-gray-200 p-4 w-3/5; } .box div { @apply mb-4 text-xl; } .box p { @apply w-1/2; } I'm evidentially missing something here.
- jaredcwhite 6y ago
  Yes, your ".box" example is 100% tied to Tailwind. Remove Tailwind from your build process, and that stylesheet is broken. So you can transition sites to Tailwind, but transitioning a site away from Tailwind proves extraordinarily difficult.
  - aidos 6y ago
    Wait, that was the challenge though. We were swapping away from Tailwind so another css framework could style the box. Now you want to keep Tailwind? You can have that cake if you want it. Just render the output one time and link to the rendered css. It’s cleanly crafted css that could have been written by hand.
- joshmanders 6y ago
  > I'm evidentially missing something here. Yes what you're missing is the hypothetical scenario of using 3 full blown CSS frameworks that apparently share the exact same HTML structure for all their components, which we all know is a farce. Jared here is just trying to make up bunk reasons for why he feels his superiority complex about CSS is best way.

aidos 6y ago

Again, this doesn't make much sense to me. Assuming that we're talking about 3 systems where the html is exactly the same between them, and we just want to add a single class on the outer element in order to style the whole component. I can do that with Tailwind. .box { @apply m-4 bg-gray-200 p-4 w-3/5; } .box div { @apply mb-4 text-xl; } .box p { @apply w-1/2; } I'm evidentially missing something here.

jaredcwhite 6y ago
Yes, your ".box" example is 100% tied to Tailwind. Remove Tailwind from your build process, and that stylesheet is broken. So you can transition sites to Tailwind, but transitioning a site away from Tailwind proves extraordinarily difficult.
- aidos 6y ago
  Wait, that was the challenge though. We were swapping away from Tailwind so another css framework could style the box. Now you want to keep Tailwind? You can have that cake if you want it. Just render the output one time and link to the rendered css. It’s cleanly crafted css that could have been written by hand.
joshmanders 6y ago
> I'm evidentially missing something here. Yes what you're missing is the hypothetical scenario of using 3 full blown CSS frameworks that apparently share the exact same HTML structure for all their components, which we all know is a farce. Jared here is just trying to make up bunk reasons for why he feels his superiority complex about CSS is best way.