4 ms·
To me, it looks a lot like TailwindCSS but with fewer constraints. I tend to appreciate Tailwind's constraints, as it makes it easier (for me) to fall into the
by aarpmcgee 5y ago
To me, it looks a lot like TailwindCSS but with fewer constraints. I tend to appreciate Tailwind's constraints, as it makes it easier (for me) to fall into the pit-of-success when trying to design layouts with consistent padding/margins/line-heights/etc.
I think cleaning up the hyperbolic marketing language would go a long way for me in terms of taking it seriously (the entire "Why" section does not actually communicate any real information).
- inopinatus 5y agoI didn't expect to love utility-first CSS, but I'm a Tailwind convert after using it in production apps. It's a great productivity boost, and a terrific fit for server-rendered partials and their descendants. This client-side production of styles on page load, however, is a step too far, since it's inevitably brittle to JS issues and FOUC.
- danielvaughn 5y agoExactly right - Tailwind's constraints are what differentiate it from just inline styling. I've only glanced at this landing page but from what I see, I don't understand the value proposition.
- iruoy 5y agoThis is what I thought at first too. But this runs in javascript for some reason. I see no reason for such a thing and the website doesn't explain why either. If you go to the Why page they're only boasting about their syntax.
- iruoy 5y agoEssentially they're moving the compile step of Tailwind to the browser. On each page load. For no benefit.