2 ms·

> Is this a template based project with global CSS? That is not an issue at all if you're using an actual component system. Yes, I use phoenix live views, whic

by kuon 6y ago

> Is this a template based project with global CSS? That is not an issue at all if you're using an actual component system. Yes, I use phoenix live views, which is just HTML templates with global CSS. I know there are tons of "real" CSS component systems, but live views has been really a life saver to me, and I don't need offline apps. Concerning the lock in, I think it makes sense only if the vendor will stop supporting it. I mean, if it works, doesn't change it, even if it means forking the repo and having it sit somewhere. The security and "bugs" are handled by the browser, the CSS framework can just be stuck in times, it shouldn't be an issue. Of course if CSS specs changes drastically, it might be an issue, but it would be for any other CSS solution. Also, we are talking about class names, this is fairly standard, tailwind didn't invent "utility-first" CSS, maybe not a drop in replacement, but I don't see that as a real lock in.

jarek83 6y ago
> Concerning the lock in, I think it makes sense only if the vendor will stop supporting it. I believe it's still not the point. By vendor lock-in, the author meant that if one day for any reason (maybe size of the bundle due to many unnecessary class variants?) you will have to go away from tailwind, you will find it either extremely time consuming or even impossible (for example due to time/budget limits).
- ArchOversight 6y ago
  The same could be said about any framework or language or tooling. I know people still using AngularJS 1.x because it is too difficult or painful to rewrite it into another framework that is more up to date. I've recently been working on updating a project from Bootstrap 3 to Bootstrap 4, similar pains are involved.
  - ricardobeat 6y ago
    > The same could be said about any framework or language or tooling That's simply not true. The knowledge of Tailwind's class names, media queries, and tooling is not transferrable, whereas styled-jsx/styled components/css modules/emotion are all still based on CSS syntax and applying classes, moving between them is vastly easier than to/from a framework like Tailwind.
    - ArchOversight 6y ago
      Moving from AngularJS to React is not the same either. Understanding the way that data moves through AngularJS does not map directly to the way that React moves data through the system or how AngularJS updates the DOM vs React and all the idiosyncrasies involved. Same is said for moving from Bootstrap to some other way of managing your styling. Different tools have different naming, different "class names", different "media queries", and different "tooling". I can't take my direct knowledge of Bootstrap 3 and use it in a styled-JSX world. Moving between frameworks is always going to be difficult and require rethinking how things are built.
      - ricardobeat 6y ago
        That was about CSS/styling frameworks only. Unlike application frameworks, the underlying tech and knowledge of CSS is the same, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.

by kuon 6y ago

jarek83 6y ago

> Concerning the lock in, I think it makes sense only if the vendor will stop supporting it. I believe it's still not the point. By vendor lock-in, the author meant that if one day for any reason (maybe size of the bundle due to many unnecessary class variants?) you will have to go away from tailwind, you will find it either extremely time consuming or even impossible (for example due to time/budget limits).

ArchOversight 6y ago
The same could be said about any framework or language or tooling. I know people still using AngularJS 1.x because it is too difficult or painful to rewrite it into another framework that is more up to date. I've recently been working on updating a project from Bootstrap 3 to Bootstrap 4, similar pains are involved.
- ricardobeat 6y ago
  > The same could be said about any framework or language or tooling That's simply not true. The knowledge of Tailwind's class names, media queries, and tooling is not transferrable, whereas styled-jsx/styled components/css modules/emotion are all still based on CSS syntax and applying classes, moving between them is vastly easier than to/from a framework like Tailwind.
  - ArchOversight 6y ago
    Moving from AngularJS to React is not the same either. Understanding the way that data moves through AngularJS does not map directly to the way that React moves data through the system or how AngularJS updates the DOM vs React and all the idiosyncrasies involved. Same is said for moving from Bootstrap to some other way of managing your styling. Different tools have different naming, different "class names", different "media queries", and different "tooling". I can't take my direct knowledge of Bootstrap 3 and use it in a styled-JSX world. Moving between frameworks is always going to be difficult and require rethinking how things are built.
    - ricardobeat 6y ago
      That was about CSS/styling frameworks only. Unlike application frameworks, the underlying tech and knowledge of CSS is the same, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.