Or it's to call to the carpet the people that are enforcing "stack requirements" of tooling that is overly complex for the job. > I've seen projects with many

Or it's to call to the carpet the people that are enforcing "stack requirements" of tooling that is overly complex for the job. > I've seen projects with many engineers breaking each other's features because they weren't specific enough with their CSS targeting. Agreed, and to add to that -- unless a team is willing to stop the line and understand why and how this happened, it will keep happening. Tailwind eliminates classes of problems without requiring people to collaborate or think. That's its "benefit". As I've said elsewhere, it comes with costs, but many of those are subtle (many devs won't have enough experience to observe them) in their short term effects. > I'm a fan of understanding the grittier side of the box-model but I've found that I can't outpace a system designed by a team of engineers to solve the problem of quick and easy layouts and components. > I've seen projects with many engineers breaking each other's features... I don't usually comment on people using "engineer" to describe software developers, but the irony in these statements is a bit much. What is being described is not engineering, it is hacking. It shouldn't be a surprise that when we hack, we break things.