tipiirai

37 ms·

1. 331.▲
   by tipiirai 3y ago

   Fully aware of this post. It's well written and I can see why people follow his stance. But I don't share Adam's history and experiences with semantic CSS. I genuinely want to separate structure from styling and not end up to
2. 332.▲
   by tipiirai 3y ago

   I think CSS does a good job at separating structure from presentation. Or what do you think was the original intention? Do you think Tailwind fixed the core issue with CSS?
3. 333.▲
   by tipiirai 3y ago

   I'm actually quite relieved. I was expecting much more hate & resistance from the Tailwind community. Showing this to people who prefer the semantic approach obviously gives a whole different reaction.
4. 334.▲
   by tipiirai 3y ago

   Accessibility is important. No question about it. But this article is not about the whole UI/UX stack. It focuses on benefits on what semantic CSS offers. aka "naming things" vs "not naming things".
5. 335.▲
   by tipiirai 3y ago

   Me too. Unfortunately the browser support for @scope is very low atm. Cascade layers are one way to decrease specifity and are well supported [1]. [1]: https://caniuse.com/css-cascade-layers
6. 336.▲
   by tipiirai 3y ago

   I have zero regrets/concerns claiming that the semantic version is 8 × smaller, renders faster, and is easier to modify and extend. Tailwind markup is clearly more bloated than semantic one. See: https://nuejs.org/blog&
7. 337.▲
   by tipiirai 3y ago

   The article focuses on Tailwind CSS vs Semantic CSS . HTML attributes, beside "class" and "style" are outside the scope. Both approaches are equally good: there is nothing extra that Tailwind provides for making websi
8. 338.▲
   by tipiirai 3y ago

   I agree. It's a super weird "language". There are flaws of course, like the grid syntax is a bit wild. But love the very basics: the cascade, the selectors, and the ability to separate styling from the structure.
9. 339.▲
   by tipiirai 3y ago

   It is _loosely_ coupled. I can switch the design completely without touching HTML. If I modify the HTML structure, the component specification changes and CSS obviously needs to be updated.
10. 340.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    I'm arguing that Tailwind requires _significantly_ more markup to produce the same look and feel. There is no way anyone could implement the semantic version with less code using TW. And I personally find less code more readable than m
11. 341.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Again. This is purely a matter of taste. I personally prefer the semantic approach.
12. 342.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Indeed! I'm a freak using CSS as intended :)
13. 343.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Yes! I strongly recommend to learn the fundamentals of web development and the basics of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. At least if you are pursuing a career on web development. Learning CSS makes you a better Tailwind developer too.
14. 344.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    I know what you are talking about. Projects tend to slow down at the end of it. But responsiveness is not one of those things, at least on this project. My honest guess is 3%, the menu being the biggest piece. It can also be lazily loaded s
15. 345.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    I sugest you look for the bigger picture on the article and the baggage you get when using Tailwind.
16. 346.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    I'm sure most developers can see the bigger picture with a 95-99% a implementation.
17. 347.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Saying this: > when you don't care about 'badly structured' CSS Is a completely different claim than this: > You are comparing Tailwind with your earlier, badly structured CSS I'm sure we both care about CSS struct
18. 348.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    The comparison is exactly that because It's the topic of the article.
19. 349.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Maybe check out the semantic CSS example using developer console: https://nuejs.org/@spotlight/
20. 350.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    > the person who developed that that person is someone from the Tailwind team. I would expect them to follow their own bst practises on the official template they sell online.
21. 351.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Copy/pasting directly from the article, because you have reworded my claims. Here's what I mean exactly: ---- You can move faster with Tailwind. But only when: 1. You are comparing Tailwind with your earlier, badly structured CSS
22. 352.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    I just took the first one from the official Tailwind templates. What would you suggest?
23. 353.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    There are exactly four <nav> elements on the front page. The ".nav" class is given for the master navigation elements in the page header and footer. class="master nav" and class="sub nav" respectively. Ma
24. 354.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Fair enough. Gimme few days, please!
25. 355.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Tailwind example indeed does more, but only slightly. Would increase the size of CSS by 1-3%. The semantic version has clearly enough to prove the point the article attempts to make: significantly less code is needed and the resulting site
26. 356.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Thanks! Semantic CSS describes an elements meaning clearly: like <form> , <table>, or <div class="gallery">. Tailwind is non-semantic because you cannot say what the element does, like for example: <a classNam
27. 357.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    True. There is some unnecessary next.js clutter in there, which I'll address on my next post. Removing that would make the HTML leaner. Likewise, removing the inline CSS from the semantic version would make it leaner.
28. 358.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Author here. Please specify a falsy claim on the article and we can talk about it.
29. 359.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    You can see this in practise here: https://nuejs.org/@spotlight/ vs here: https://nuejs.org/@base/ (the gallery component)
30. 360.▲
    by tipiirai 3y ago

    Author here: - How is it not responsive? I can easily fix. - The Tailwind example is the official template made by the Tailwind developers themselves.