3 ms·

Like many discussions, Tailwind is a topic on which some of us are guilty of not stepping back and realising that others have different views mostly due to thei

Like many discussions, Tailwind is a topic on which some of us are guilty of not stepping back and realising that others have different views mostly due to their background and the tools that they've used, and that those views are totally valid. For example, I also don't like Tailwind (or, for that matter, Tachyons or any of the similar tools). I find it absolutely infuriating to work on a site that uses it, it is a massive drag on my productivity, and offers quite literally nothing that I want. But here's the thing – I was a front-end specialist for years. I know how to write CSS and Sass, how to build UIs from them, and I have an established set of patterns and helpers for doing so. I used to be a graphic designer too, so doing things like building an application-specific design system is my bread-and-butter. For me, Tailwind is a massive distracting abstraction on top of a thing that I'm already completely comfortable using. Other people aren't necessarily in the same position. It takes a lot of time and work to start thinking in terms of the way that styling works on the web, and CSS is pretty different to many of the languages and tools that developers are used to. If you're a back-end developer who is primarily interesting in implementing a straightforward and functional UI for something, then investing lots of time in the quite different skill set of front-end styling probably doesn't offer a good return. So there are sets of tools out there which make it easy to write simple, organised, and maintainable sets of styles, without having to get right into the weeds. Of course as always YYMV and you might be a CSS expert who loves the consistency of this kind of framework. But I'd definitely back up the idea I've seen some other people mention – there's no obvious right or wrong, or objectively correct answer.

paavohtl 6y ago
I don't understand how Tailwind would make writing CSS easier if you're not an expert. The complexity of CSS is in learning how the layout algorithm works, and how to implement common UI patterns. You're still writing exactly the same CSS rules in Tailwind, just with a different syntax. The complexity remains exactly the same.
- deergomoo 6y ago
  I'd argue a lot of the complexity in CSS comes from how people typically write it: lumping a bunch of properties into "semantic" classes, then trying to juggle how those all cascade and interact when nested within other such classes. I think we've all lost the will to live trying to "undo" a style cascaded from an element's great-great-grandparent. Of course, you don't have to do that—you could write your CSS classes as ultra-low specificity classes that each only target one property...but I think you'll find that's what Tailwind is :)
vehemenz 6y ago
You're right that there is no obvious right or wrong, but I don't think it's a matter of background either. For example, I have a similar background and think that the "old" way of doing things is an over-abstracted waste of time. I spent many years doing frontends with CSS, then Less, Sass, and I have used all of the popular methodologies at some point or another. I am very comfortable building things that way, and it would probably be my preference, all things being equal. However, developing with Tailwind is just plain faster than the other methodologies. And it's easier to adjust components in production. When it comes down to it, those are two areas that Tailwind excels in, and high-abstraction CSS methodologies (despite their other merits) do not.

paavohtl 6y ago

I don't understand how Tailwind would make writing CSS easier if you're not an expert. The complexity of CSS is in learning how the layout algorithm works, and how to implement common UI patterns. You're still writing exactly the same CSS rules in Tailwind, just with a different syntax. The complexity remains exactly the same.

deergomoo 6y ago
I'd argue a lot of the complexity in CSS comes from how people typically write it: lumping a bunch of properties into "semantic" classes, then trying to juggle how those all cascade and interact when nested within other such classes. I think we've all lost the will to live trying to "undo" a style cascaded from an element's great-great-grandparent. Of course, you don't have to do that—you could write your CSS classes as ultra-low specificity classes that each only target one property...but I think you'll find that's what Tailwind is :)

vehemenz 6y ago

You're right that there is no obvious right or wrong, but I don't think it's a matter of background either. For example, I have a similar background and think that the "old" way of doing things is an over-abstracted waste of time. I spent many years doing frontends with CSS, then Less, Sass, and I have used all of the popular methodologies at some point or another. I am very comfortable building things that way, and it would probably be my preference, all things being equal. However, developing with Tailwind is just plain faster than the other methodologies. And it's easier to adjust components in production. When it comes down to it, those are two areas that Tailwind excels in, and high-abstraction CSS methodologies (despite their other merits) do not.