4 ms·

Libraries that have a scope defined implicitly by what accidentally works or doesn’t work can still be very annoying.

by sfvisser 4y ago

tonerow 4y ago
_this_
Aeolun 4y ago
It's not like the `style` object is far away. Nothing about Tailwind prohibits you from using normal classes.
- admax88qqq 4y ago
  Yes tailwind let's you reach through and apply some CSS directly. Almost like its an abstraction that exposes, or leaks, that which it attemps to abstract. A "leaky abstraction" if you will.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    Honestly - I find this opinion misguided. It's like saying a for loop is a leaky abstraction over a while loop. Which... is asinine. One is simply a redacted and simplified expression of the most common implementation of the other case. Tailwind falls into the same bucket - in my opinion. Like most frameworks, it's not there to handle your niche and complex use-cases. It's there to provide bumpers that push you into a pit of success for common use cases. When you need to do something that's not common - use the escape hatches that are built in. That's not leaking - that's giving you the flexibility to fall back to a custom implementation. The goal just isn't "abstraction" from css. It's common-sense, local, and consistent styling for common cases. I can build most lego sets from single square blocks - but it's nice to have a bigger selection available. Does that mean I need to understand those bigger pieces to make sure they fit, don't have weird gaps, and line up? Absolutely. Does that mean I shouldn't use them? No, probably not. But it does mean that sometimes I still need single square blocks.
    - wokwokwok 4y ago
      I think the opinion here comes from other compile-to-x languages. Let’s look at typescript, or sass. There is (afaik) no construct in the underlying js or css that cannot be represented using them. You could conceivably never learn javascript, learn typescript and basically be fine. So when people say “leaky abstraction” they seem to be assuming that tailwind, which is a framework will allow you to represent every possible css output. …which it can’t do, obviously, and was never intended to do. All I’m pointing out is that the expectation that it could might not be quite so daft when viewed from the lens of “I expected tailwind to be a framework in the same way sass is” or perhaps “the same way this framework that compiles using sass is”. It’s like if I was using vue, and found that the template language can’t express complex logic without writing js (h() expressions) and not using the template language at all. It’s wrong to say it’s a leaky abstraction; but it’s maybe not completely asinine to say, it a bit rubbish that you have to do that as soon as you hit any non trivial use case… > Like most frameworks, it's not there to handle your niche and complex use-cases. It's there to provide bumpers that push you into a pit of success for common use cases. …but as you say. Quite so. Im just saying I can see the frustration people encounter when they have the naive expectation that those edge cases are rare enough they’ll never hit them, and then immediately run into them.
      - horsawlarway 4y ago
        I guess I see it as the opinion of someone who hasn't used it, or doesn't really understand the value. I don't love Tailwind, but I can understand the spot it's trying to fit in, and I value the things it's trying to offer (locality, consistency, sane guidelines). I think the sweet spot for that value proposition is projects where the designs don't need to be pixel perfect or extra fancy - they just need to work, quickly. I've used it successfully several times in those cases. Not to mention personal projects where just having a decent template made that I can tweak is great. I would probably not use it anywhere you have real UI constraints or concerns, and you care a lot about specific animations or exact pixel placement. I tend to reach for styled-components in those spots these days. Since it gives me a fair share of the same value proposition (locality, consistency) but removes the guidelines/bumpers. They play pretty nicely together (with some constraints), though - again, use the different lego blocks where they make sense. Stop trying to treat everything like a tailwind shaped nail you have to beat in with just that hammer.
  - nightski 4y ago
    Tailwind is just css classes. It was never meant to abstract anything.
  - dancooke616 4y ago
    poor take - tailwind is not trying to abstract CSS away from you. Abstracting away CSS would be painful and pointless - theres no way a higher-level language could emerge that would give the user the same feature parity. You can play this "leaky abstraction" game with almost any concept, without the ability to reach down an abstraction level you lose flexibility. Its not a smell to be slightly leaky.
root_axis 4y ago
Based on this reasoning, C is a leaky abstraction because you can inline asm into a C program.
- gaganyaan 4y ago
  That's true. To borrow from another famous quote: All abstractions are leaky; some are useful
  - root_axis 4y ago
    Wise words.

Libraries that have a scope defined implicitly by what accidentally works or doesn’t work can still be very annoying.

tonerow 4y ago

_this_

Aeolun 4y ago

It's not like the `style` object is far away. Nothing about Tailwind prohibits you from using normal classes.

admax88qqq 4y ago
Yes tailwind let's you reach through and apply some CSS directly. Almost like its an abstraction that exposes, or leaks, that which it attemps to abstract. A "leaky abstraction" if you will.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Honestly - I find this opinion misguided. It's like saying a for loop is a leaky abstraction over a while loop. Which... is asinine. One is simply a redacted and simplified expression of the most common implementation of the other case. Tailwind falls into the same bucket - in my opinion. Like most frameworks, it's not there to handle your niche and complex use-cases. It's there to provide bumpers that push you into a pit of success for common use cases. When you need to do something that's not common - use the escape hatches that are built in. That's not leaking - that's giving you the flexibility to fall back to a custom implementation. The goal just isn't "abstraction" from css. It's common-sense, local, and consistent styling for common cases. I can build most lego sets from single square blocks - but it's nice to have a bigger selection available. Does that mean I need to understand those bigger pieces to make sure they fit, don't have weird gaps, and line up? Absolutely. Does that mean I shouldn't use them? No, probably not. But it does mean that sometimes I still need single square blocks.
  - wokwokwok 4y ago
    I think the opinion here comes from other compile-to-x languages. Let’s look at typescript, or sass. There is (afaik) no construct in the underlying js or css that cannot be represented using them. You could conceivably never learn javascript, learn typescript and basically be fine. So when people say “leaky abstraction” they seem to be assuming that tailwind, which is a framework will allow you to represent every possible css output. …which it can’t do, obviously, and was never intended to do. All I’m pointing out is that the expectation that it could might not be quite so daft when viewed from the lens of “I expected tailwind to be a framework in the same way sass is” or perhaps “the same way this framework that compiles using sass is”. It’s like if I was using vue, and found that the template language can’t express complex logic without writing js (h() expressions) and not using the template language at all. It’s wrong to say it’s a leaky abstraction; but it’s maybe not completely asinine to say, it a bit rubbish that you have to do that as soon as you hit any non trivial use case… > Like most frameworks, it's not there to handle your niche and complex use-cases. It's there to provide bumpers that push you into a pit of success for common use cases. …but as you say. Quite so. Im just saying I can see the frustration people encounter when they have the naive expectation that those edge cases are rare enough they’ll never hit them, and then immediately run into them.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      I guess I see it as the opinion of someone who hasn't used it, or doesn't really understand the value. I don't love Tailwind, but I can understand the spot it's trying to fit in, and I value the things it's trying to offer (locality, consistency, sane guidelines). I think the sweet spot for that value proposition is projects where the designs don't need to be pixel perfect or extra fancy - they just need to work, quickly. I've used it successfully several times in those cases. Not to mention personal projects where just having a decent template made that I can tweak is great. I would probably not use it anywhere you have real UI constraints or concerns, and you care a lot about specific animations or exact pixel placement. I tend to reach for styled-components in those spots these days. Since it gives me a fair share of the same value proposition (locality, consistency) but removes the guidelines/bumpers. They play pretty nicely together (with some constraints), though - again, use the different lego blocks where they make sense. Stop trying to treat everything like a tailwind shaped nail you have to beat in with just that hammer.
- nightski 4y ago
  Tailwind is just css classes. It was never meant to abstract anything.
- dancooke616 4y ago
  poor take - tailwind is not trying to abstract CSS away from you. Abstracting away CSS would be painful and pointless - theres no way a higher-level language could emerge that would give the user the same feature parity. You can play this "leaky abstraction" game with almost any concept, without the ability to reach down an abstraction level you lose flexibility. Its not a smell to be slightly leaky.

root_axis 4y ago

Based on this reasoning, C is a leaky abstraction because you can inline asm into a C program.

gaganyaan 4y ago
That's true. To borrow from another famous quote: All abstractions are leaky; some are useful
- root_axis 4y ago
  Wise words.