3 ms·

I share your sentiment and position on Tailwind. My first introduction to programming was in 2003 as a 10 year old with HTML CSS and PHP. I think we will see Ta

I share your sentiment and position on Tailwind. My first introduction to programming was in 2003 as a 10 year old with HTML CSS and PHP. I think we will see Tailwind, like other frontend tech, fade into the sea of choices. If I had to summarize this I'd say don't fall victim to hype cycle and marketing. Make technical choices based on the problems. I've worked on teams where CSS was a mysterious language with many gotchas. So I can see how Tailwind can help with this.

tipiirai 3y ago
I can also see how Tailwind can help teams that just want to move forward by copy/pasting ready-made components without ever looking "under the hood". However, I wrote this article for the love of CSS, web standards, and the web in general. I think Tailwind's dishonest marketing tactics aren't doing good for the development community. Especially for young developers who are suddenly told that things like separation of concerns and good naming practises are a bad thing.
- jonwinstanley 3y ago
  In your article you highlighted that semantic markup can be much cleaner using a class like “primary”. But in that instance, all of those css rules will still exist, but they’re stored in a separate css file and given a class name. Having the reusability at the css class level means that someone else might break your component by updating the css. With Tailwind, the reusability is at the component level. All the styles are self contained. No one can break your component accidentally.
- unculture 3y ago
  You really need to cut out these accusations of dishonesty - it’s a bad look. He’s not saying “separation of concerns and good naming practices” are bad things, he’s saying that separation of concerns between HTML and CSS is mostly a false separation (it’s the same concern - making the UI look right) and that good naming practices are hard - best just do that in one place, the component that address the concern with both style and structure.
teen 3y ago
I've been doing CSS for 20 years, Tailwind indeed lives up to the hype. Just the fact that amount of CSS code you need to send down the wire stops scaling linearly with each new component is a big benefit in its own right.

tipiirai 3y ago

I can also see how Tailwind can help teams that just want to move forward by copy/pasting ready-made components without ever looking "under the hood". However, I wrote this article for the love of CSS, web standards, and the web in general. I think Tailwind's dishonest marketing tactics aren't doing good for the development community. Especially for young developers who are suddenly told that things like separation of concerns and good naming practises are a bad thing.

jonwinstanley 3y ago
In your article you highlighted that semantic markup can be much cleaner using a class like “primary”. But in that instance, all of those css rules will still exist, but they’re stored in a separate css file and given a class name. Having the reusability at the css class level means that someone else might break your component by updating the css. With Tailwind, the reusability is at the component level. All the styles are self contained. No one can break your component accidentally.
unculture 3y ago
You really need to cut out these accusations of dishonesty - it’s a bad look. He’s not saying “separation of concerns and good naming practices” are bad things, he’s saying that separation of concerns between HTML and CSS is mostly a false separation (it’s the same concern - making the UI look right) and that good naming practices are hard - best just do that in one place, the component that address the concern with both style and structure.

teen 3y ago

I've been doing CSS for 20 years, Tailwind indeed lives up to the hype. Just the fact that amount of CSS code you need to send down the wire stops scaling linearly with each new component is a big benefit in its own right.