I think it's important to add to the article. Like I said, the one bit of CSS you added is nowhere near the functionality of the Tailwind example you were compa

I think it's important to add to the article. Like I said, the one bit of CSS you added is nowhere near the functionality of the Tailwind example you were comparing it to. Without an apples to apples comparison showing _how_ Tailwind should've done it, your words have less power. --- I read your other article and it still feels superficial and missing details. You compare a demo of a commercially available (effectively "closed source") template against a page you built, but don't provide the source for the page you built. Apologies if it's in the article, but I couldn't find it. I did find the simple blog template on the Nue site, but it had considerably less functionality than the Tailwind demo. It's still not an apples to apples comparison, because you're comparing a site built with Nextjs to whatever you built. Of course static HTML without JavaScript is going to load faster than an SSG site. I think the ending quote in the second article is completely unrelated to Tailwind and I'm not sure why it was your conclusion. > The fact is that Tailwind's popularity will eventually fade. CSS-in-JS is trending now, but standards are forever. Tailwind isn't CSS-in-JS. You don't need a build step to write it. You need a build step for important features like tree shaking and dynamic properties, but it's not CSS-in-JS. Including that hurts your position because it sounds like you don't understand what you're arguing against. Lastly, why so much hate against Tailwind? Positioning your framework as "Nue and semantic CSS vs Tailwind" doesn't make me want to try your framework. Show me why your framework is good and let me bring my own solutions to it.