4 ms·
CSS simply doesn't need a framework - there's no "from scratch". For humans or LLM authors. Tailwind is a lot of overhead conceptually and tooling wise to just
by spankalee 9mo ago
CSS simply doesn't need a framework - there's no "from scratch". For humans or LLM authors.
Tailwind is a lot of overhead conceptually and tooling wise to just not have to write classnames, and it's actually anti-modular.
- vehemenz 9mo agoCan you explain? Tailwind massively reduces overhead for abstraction, classing, documentation, and maintenance.
- wrs 9mo agoAFAICT, Tailwind is largely (not entirely) a different, shorter syntax for writing inline styles. (E.g., "class: 'bg-white'" = "style: 'background-color: white'".) If you've rejected structural CSS to begin with, I sort of get the point that it saves a lot of typing; otherwise I don't see how it helps all that much over SASS or just modern plain CSS.
- rvnx 9mo agoTailwind is a dirty hack, normally you are supposed to declare a class, which you apply to items of the same concept. This is the cause for CSS to exist. Front devs got lazy, and started writing for each element, position: absolute; left:3px, top:6px, color:red;... You could write <font color="red">Hello</font> this would be similar "cleanliness"
- cluckindan 9mo agoCan’t wait for Headwind CSS implemented as custom elements.
- AltruisticGapHN 9mo agoThat's not the full picture. If you're a senior CSS developer you will invariably reach a point of using "object oriented CSS" which is where you combine classes to an effect. At that point you're not far off Tailwind. TW just took it all the way.