| ▲ | spankalee a day 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. |
|
| ▲ | AltruisticGapHN 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That'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. |
|
| ▲ | vehemenz a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Can you explain? Tailwind massively reduces overhead for abstraction, classing, documentation, and maintenance. |
| |
| ▲ | wrs a day ago | parent [-] | | AFAICT, 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | Tailwind 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" | | |
|
|
