3 ms·

Nope. Some people don't want fuss over UI to the extent that tailwind forces you. Some of us want an opinionated Sass-based framework out of the box. The only a

Nope. Some people don't want fuss over UI to the extent that tailwind forces you. Some of us want an opinionated Sass-based framework out of the box. The only advantage I've found using Tailwind is anal-level control over details when bootstrap already has a uniform ecosystem with far, far fewer classes. The former requires way more upfront cost to get running, where the latter is done at day one. Only downside is the tree-shaking in bootstrap, it would be nice if it could be made smaller during a Next/Nuxt/webpack build.

dgb23 4y ago
These tailwind component libraries make little sense if you compare them directly to bootstrap without wanting to work with tailwind. Tailwind is in every way superior when you are implementing a bespoke design, you develop faster, your CSS is small and less complex, the output is performant, you have a uniform mini-language, if you apply some up front analysis of a design/-system you can generate 90% of your CSS from a normalized configuration. Now compare that to fighting default styles and complected component styles, applying overrides, extending via SCSS variables and generating your own CSS utilities with SCSS. It's pretty night and day for this use-case. Component libs for tailwind that compress the classes are a bit funny and IMO you don't get much benefit from them other than playing nice with tailwind. You might have a reason to use tailwind but want predefined component classes? But then you get the same disadvantage that component based libraries like bootstrap have, so the choice is arbitrary here. What makes _much_ more sense is what tailwindui does, they give you the raw source, so you get to write out of the box components quickly but can pull them apart without friction.
- gotaquestion 4y ago
  I don't think you listened to me, because you said this: > Now compare that to fighting default styles and complected component styles As I said, I am NOT fighting default styles. I want them. I don't WANT to write my own components, just change colors with Sass (and maybe some affordances). I'm an engineer, not a UX designer, and I don't have budget to hire a UX designer (nor do I pretend to be good at UX like most programmers). Bootstrap is ideal for my situation, and many others in my position. Also, what are you talking about? Tailwind absolutely does NOT give you out of the box components. Only third-parties, like DaisyUI and OP's link are fully formed components (or the links off of the tailwind page), which are at best like bootstrap and at worse an inconsistent mess.
  - mimsee 4y ago
    > Also, what are you talking about? Tailwind absolutely does NOT give you out of the box components. Well, no. And that's by design. Should you want components, there's an official Tailwind UI[0] that the dgb23 also mentioned. Not to mention the uncountable amount of open-source component libraries. [0]: https://tailwindui.com/ https://tailwindui.com/
  - dgb23 4y ago
    Yes I get that, I wanted to illustrate the use case for tailwind (bespoke design) and why it makes sense there and how component libs can still be useful if delivered in raw form. I didn’t want to imply that your use case isn’t valid.

dgb23 4y ago

These tailwind component libraries make little sense if you compare them directly to bootstrap without wanting to work with tailwind. Tailwind is in every way superior when you are implementing a bespoke design, you develop faster, your CSS is small and less complex, the output is performant, you have a uniform mini-language, if you apply some up front analysis of a design/-system you can generate 90% of your CSS from a normalized configuration. Now compare that to fighting default styles and complected component styles, applying overrides, extending via SCSS variables and generating your own CSS utilities with SCSS. It's pretty night and day for this use-case. Component libs for tailwind that compress the classes are a bit funny and IMO you don't get much benefit from them other than playing nice with tailwind. You might have a reason to use tailwind but want predefined component classes? But then you get the same disadvantage that component based libraries like bootstrap have, so the choice is arbitrary here. What makes _much_ more sense is what tailwindui does, they give you the raw source, so you get to write out of the box components quickly but can pull them apart without friction.

gotaquestion 4y ago
I don't think you listened to me, because you said this: > Now compare that to fighting default styles and complected component styles As I said, I am NOT fighting default styles. I want them. I don't WANT to write my own components, just change colors with Sass (and maybe some affordances). I'm an engineer, not a UX designer, and I don't have budget to hire a UX designer (nor do I pretend to be good at UX like most programmers). Bootstrap is ideal for my situation, and many others in my position. Also, what are you talking about? Tailwind absolutely does NOT give you out of the box components. Only third-parties, like DaisyUI and OP's link are fully formed components (or the links off of the tailwind page), which are at best like bootstrap and at worse an inconsistent mess.
- mimsee 4y ago
  > Also, what are you talking about? Tailwind absolutely does NOT give you out of the box components. Well, no. And that's by design. Should you want components, there's an official Tailwind UI[0] that the dgb23 also mentioned. Not to mention the uncountable amount of open-source component libraries. [0]: https://tailwindui.com/ https://tailwindui.com/
- dgb23 4y ago
  Yes I get that, I wanted to illustrate the use case for tailwind (bespoke design) and why it makes sense there and how component libs can still be useful if delivered in raw form. I didn’t want to imply that your use case isn’t valid.