Remix.run Logo
azangru 20 hours ago

> If suddenly CSS became pleasant to use, Tailwind would be in a rough spot.

CSS is pleasant to use. I know I find it pleasant to use; and I know there are quite a few frontend developers who do too. I didn't pay much attention to tailwind, until suddenly I realized that it has spread like wildfire and now is everywhere. What drove that growth? Which groups were the first adopters of tailwind; how did they grow; when did the growth skyrocket? Why did it not stay as niche as, say, htmx?

ahussain 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People like tailwind because it feels like the correct abstraction. It helps you colocate layout and styling, thereby reducing cognitive load.

With CSS you have to add meaningless class names to your html (+remember them), learn complicated (+fragile) selectors, and memorise low level CSS styles.

With tailwind you just specify the styling you want. And if using React, the “cascading” piece is already taken care of.

zarzavat 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The point of CSS is specifically to separate styling and semantics, so that they are not tightly coupled.

If you were writing a blog post you would want to be able to change the theme without going through every blog post you ever wrote, no?

If I'm writing a React component I don't want it tightly coupled to its cosmetic appearance for the same reason. Styling is imposed on elements, intrinsic styles are bad and work against reusability, that's why we all use resets is it not?

I do agree that the class name system doesn't scale but the solution is not to double down on coupling, but rather to double down on abstraction and find better ways to identify and select elements.

seanwilson 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Content should come from your database, Markdown, JSON, models etc.

Presentation is determined by the HTML and CSS together.

So your content and presentation is already separate enough to get the benefits. Breaking up the presentation layer further with premature abstractions spread over multiple files comes at a cost for little payback. I'm sure everyone has worked on sites where you're scared to make CSS file edits because the unpredictable ripple of changes might break unrelated pages.

Styling code near your semantic HTML tags doesn't get in the way, and they're highly related too so you want to iterate and review on them together.

I've never seen a complex website redesign that didn't involve almost gutting the HTML either. CSS isn't powerful enough alone and it's not worth the cost of jumping through hoops trying because it's rare sites need theme switchers. Even blog post themes for the same platform come with their own HTML instead of being CSS-only.

> If you were writing a blog post you would want to be able to change the theme without going through every blog post you ever wrote, no?

Tailwind sites often have a `prose` class specifically for styling post content in the traditional CSS way (especially if you're not in control of how the HTML was generated) and this is some of the simplest styling work. For complex UIs and branded elements though, the utility class approach scales much better.

vaylian 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I've never seen a complex website redesign that didn't involve almost gutting the HTML either. CSS isn't powerful enough alone

I recognize your experience. But I would also like to argue that good semantic CSS class names require active development effort. If you inherit a code base where no one has done the work of properly assigning semantic CSS names to tags, then you can't update the external stylesheet without touching the HTML.

https://csszengarden.com/ shows how a clean separation between HTML and CSS can be achieved. This is obviously a simple web site and there is not much cruft that accumulated over the years. But the principles behind it are scalable when people take the separation of content and representation seriously.

zarzavat 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm sure everyone has worked on sites where you're scared to make CSS file edits because the unpredictable ripple of changes might break unrelated pages.

CSS gives you multiple tools to solve this problem, if you don't use any of them then it's not really CSS's fault.

> Styling code near your semantic HTML tags doesn't get in the way

It does. When I'm working on functionality I don't want to see styles and vice versa. It adds a layer of noise that is not relevant.

If I'm making e.g. a search dropdown, I don't need to see any information about its cosmetic appearance. I do want to see information about how it functions.

Especially the other way around: if I'm styling the search dropdown I don't want to have to track down every JSX element in every sub-component. That's super tedious. All I need to know when I'm styling is the overall structure of the final element tree not of the vdom tree which could be considerably more complex.

> I've never seen a complex website redesign that didn't involve almost gutting the HTML either

Perhaps for a landing page. For a content-based website or web app you often want to adjust the design without touching your components.

mstipetic 8 hours ago | parent [-]

So hide the class list if you don’t want to see it

code_biologist 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'll add to my sibling commenters and say that there is a long history of critiquing the value of separation of concerns. One of my favorite early talks that sold me on React was "Pete Hunt: React: Rethinking best practices -- JSConf EU" from Oct 2013 [1] that critiqued the separation of concerns of HTML templates + JS popular in the 2000s and early 2010s and instead advocated for componentization as higher return on investment. I think people already saw styling separation of concerns as not particularly valuable at that point as well, just it wasn't clear what component-friendly styling abstraction was going to win.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cQ3mrcKaY

Jaygles 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do want styles tightly coupled to my React components. The product I work on has tens of thousands of React components.

I don't want to have to update some random CSS file to change one component's appearance. I've had to do this before and every time its a huge pain to not affect dozens of random other components. Other engineers encounter the same challenge and write poor CSS to deal with it. This compounds over time and becomes a huge mess.

Having a robust design system that enables the composition of complicated UIs without the need for much customization is the way.

jasonkester 7 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s the heart of the matter.

Front end development got taken over by the Enterprise Java camp at some point, so now there is no html and css. There’s 10,000 components, and thus nothing that can be styled in a cascading way.

All these arguments are just disconnects between that camp and the oldskool that still writes at least some html by hand.

When I get sucked into react land for a gig, it starts making sense to just tell this particular div tag to have 2px of padding because the piece of code I’m typing is the only thing that’s ever going to emit it.

Then I go back to my own stuff and lean on css to style my handful of reusable pieces.

maple3142 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the problem is simply that css is too restricted that you can style a fixed piece of html in any way you want. In practice, achieving some desired layout require changing the html structure. The missing layer would be something that can change the structure of html like js or xslt. In modern frontend development you already have data defined in some json, and html + css combined together is the presentation layer that can't really be separated.

csallen 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The point of CSS is specifically to separate styling and semantics, so that they are not tightly coupled.

That was the original point, and it turned out that nobody cares about that 99% of the time. It's premature optimization and it violates "YAGNI". And in addition to not being something most people need, it's just a pain to set and remember and organize class names and organize files.

Remember CSS Zen Garden from the late 90s? How many sites actually do anything like that? Almost none.

And the beauty of Tailwind is, when you actually do need themes, that's the only stuff you have to name and organize in separate CSS files. Instead of having to do that with literally all of your CSS.

DangitBobby 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Not only does no one care, but it's not even true. There are effects you simply cannot achieve without including additional elements. So separation of styling and sementics is dead on arrival.

halfcat 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're talking about separation of concerns (SOC), as opposed to locality of behavior (LOB).

This is the insight that Tailwind and others like HTMX made clear: Separation of concerns is not a universal virtue. It comes with a cognitive cost. Most notably when you have a growing inheritance hierarchy, and you either need 12 files open or tooling that helps you understand which of the 482 classes are in play for the specific case you’re troubleshooting. Vanilla CSS can be like that, especially when it’s not one’s primary skillset. With Tailwind you say ”this button needs to be blue”, and consolidate stuff into CSS later once the right patterns of abstraction become clear. Tailwind makes exploratory building way faster when we’re not CSS experts.

SOC is usually a virtue when teams are split (frontend/bavkend, etc), but LOB is a virtue when teams are small, full stack, or working on monoliths (this is basically Conway’s law, the shape of the codebase mirrors the shape of the team).

amrocha 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You’re kinda late to the party. 15 years ago that was the way to build UIs, but componentization changed that. Now we reason about UIs as blocks, not as pages, so collocation of logic, markup, and style makes the most sense.

Not to say that every component should be unique, generic components can be built in an extensible way, and users can extend those components while applying unique styling.

Theming is also a solved issue through contexts.

Reducing coupling was never a good idea. Markup and styling are intrinsically linked, making any change to the markup most likely will require changes to the styling, and vice versa. Instead of pretending we can separate the two, modern UI tools embrace the coupling and make building as efficient as possible.

zarzavat 10 hours ago | parent [-]

In the webdev world being late is the same as being early. Just wait for the pendulum to swing back.

Tailwind is like GenZ has discovered the bgcolor="" attribute.

> Markup and styling are intrinsically linked, making any change to the markup most likely will require changes to the styling, and vice versa.

No, not vice versa. It's only in one direction. Changing the component requires changing styles, but changing styles doesn't require changing the component if it's merely cosmetic. If I have a button and I want to make it red the button doesn't have to know what color it is.

amrocha 9 hours ago | parent [-]

There’s nothing “gen z” about Tailwind, and there’s no pendulum effect either, and dismissing the very real benefit thousands of people report from Tailwind based on that is very small minded.

That kind of lack of intellectual curiosity is not a great trait for an engineer.

solumunus 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People who have tried both throughout their careers are generally sticking with Tailwind. I didn’t get it at first either, but after using it extensively I would never go back to the old way.

krsdcbl 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

disagree. Colocation seems great when authoring, but it comes at a big cost of downstream tech debt

there could be better ways to ease the burdon of naming things, while preserving cascade and the actual full features of CSS

Tailwind is a mirage, a shortcut to not having to do the important stuff by stacking wrappers on top of wrappers and redundancy

And the "fragile" part is exactly the same thing with tailwind, it all remains low specificity class names

DangitBobby 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Every line of CSS you write creates tech debt, it has nothing to do with tailwind.

hdjrudni 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Those are the same selling points as CSS-in-JSS libs like Styled Components. Or CSS Components.

Except your last point about "low-level CSS styles" which I'd argue is a weak point. You really should learn the underlying CSS to gain mastery of it.

Not arguing for one thing over another, just saying Tailwind really never had anything to offer me personally, but maybe if I wasn't already proficient in CSS and the other 2 options didn't exist it might hold some appeal for me.

ahussain 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s more about cognitive load, and abstraction level. If you’re trying to make an object spin, it’s much easier to use the tailwind class than it is to remember css keyframes.

Sure, when debugging a complex issue, it’s worth knowing the low-level, but CSS is not a great abstraction for day-to-day work.

never_inline 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you suggest a best place to learn CSS in-depth, from first principles? (as opposed to, say, simple tutorials)

solarengineer 13 hours ago | parent [-]

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS

While CSS Zen Garden will likely not accept new submissions, there are many good designs on showcase: https://csszengarden.com/pages/alldesigns/

amrocha 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You’re right that it’s not much more than a css in js library, but I’ve found myself pleasantly surprised at how efficient I am using it, despite also having years of css experience.

Things like remembering what the flex syntax is, or coming up with a padding system or a colour scheme become very very easy.

I think the editor tooling for tailwind is where most of the benefit comes from.

I also prefer the syntax over direct css in js systems. It’s less characters, which means it’s easier to parse.

Give it a try, you might be surprised!

daemonologist 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Imo CSS is not pleasant to use, but Tailwind is at least as bad and furthermore is bad in addition to the CSS badness which it does not fully replace. It is a mystery to me as well how it got so popular.

(I know many people disagree, which is fair enough.)

skybrian 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Writing CSS manually was never all that pleasant for me, mostly the part about debugging it when it doesn't do what I want.

So I tried Tailwind and it seemed to help.

But now that Claude Opus 4.5 is writing all my code, it can write and debug CSS better than I can use Tailwind. So, CSS it is.

shimman 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Debugging CSS nowadays is way easier than even 5 years ago. There are a lot of cool browser debugging tools for animations, z-indexes. The browsers have come a long way since firebug. Definitely look into both chrome or firefox, their tooling is great. Especially firefox, they have debugging tools where you can create css shapes in the browser and save them. Very handy for those artsy fartsy sites.

ahussain 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Claude can also write and debug tailwind for you! :)

znnajdla 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I used plain CSS for more than a decade and felt the benefits of Tailwind within 10 minutes of getting started. What fueled the growth of Tailwind is that it makes web development palpably easier.

aleksandrm 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What were the benefits that you felt instantly? I still don't feel anything and would prefer plain CSS over Tailwind any day.

jackhuman 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I first took a css courses to get the basics then didn’t do much with it, then tailwind came out. I had used bootstrap, but always struggled to get stuff to look nice. I’m not doing web dev most of the time. So it was much easier to memorize tailwind utility classes than css. These days with ui frameworks like daisy, shadcn, tailwind is pretty easy for doing something simple for an IT dev tool but still customize it.

For creativity, I wished I had the time to get really good with css. It really seems to have grown a lot. Using sveltekit, its really easy to get component scoped css

ForHackernews 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It lets you apply styles to a single element without it messing up the whole rest of the page/site/app. i.e. it disabled the primary feature of CSS, the thing most people don't want from it.

peacebeard 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree that the primary feature of CSS is what people don't want from it anymore. If you're building your app with components (web components, react, etc), those become the unit of reuse. You don't need CSS to offer an additional unit of reuse, it only complicates things at that point.

azangru 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> You don't need CSS to offer an additional unit of reuse

Erm. Isn't this one of tailwind's selling points? That you have a set of classes that you keep reusing?

hamandcheese 17 hours ago | parent [-]

This is technically true, but misses the point. Tailwind classes are fine grained utility classes, the fact that they are CSS classes at all is pretty much an implementation detail.

Compare tailwind classes to bootstrap classes and you'll see what I mean.

azangru 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do people prefer it over CSS modules? They also solve the style containment problem, and do not require any effort to set up, or any additional library to learn?

troupo 18 hours ago | parent [-]

You're probably confusing something with something?

CSS Modules are a JS-only third party solution re-invented/re-implemented in a dozen different ways for various JS frontend frameworks. Requires setting up, requires learning an additional library.

If you mean these CSS modules: https://github.com/css-modules/css-modules?tab=readme-ov-fil... then they need to be supported by whatever build chain you use. And you literally need to use them slightly different than normal CSS. E.g. for Vite yuo need to have `.module.css` extension. And they often rely on additional libraries to learn. E.g. you can enable Lightning CSS with aforementioned Vite which comes with its own CSS flavour: https://lightningcss.dev/css-modules.html

If you mean CSS import attributes, they only appeared in 2024 in Chrome and Firefox, early 2025 in mobile Android etc. and they don't provide magical local scoping out of the box: https://caniuse.com/wf-css-modules

azangru 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I meant the CSS modules that are implemented by a build tool. And yes, mea culpa, they are probably a js-only solution, requiring a build tool to correctly interpret a css import (.module.css in the file name is a common convention; but it is tweakable), and the author to use the imported object instead of plain strings, when referring to the class names. But I don't know if having to write `class="styles.foo"` as opposed to `class="foo"` counts as learning. And apart from that, there isn't anything else to learn.

But, given that one would need build tools for tailwind as well, the requirement for build tools couldn't have played a role in the choice between the two.

owebmaster 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well no, none of them ?

This is what OP was talking about:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Guides/Nest...

troupo 9 hours ago | parent [-]

No, he's not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46570846

owebmaster 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Ignore it then, CSS nesting and layers are the real deal

troupo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Nesting is the bee's knees.

I still don't understand what layering is, and why you would use it.

gedy 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> CSS Modules are a JS-only third party solution re-invented/re-implemented in a dozen different ways for various JS frontend frameworks. Requires setting up, requires learning an additional library.

I mean, Tailwind is not that different here - you must use a build tool to tree shake the styles, etc.

jasonkester 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think that’s what people are talking about when they say they don’t see the benefit.

There’s already a style attribute on every html element that does exactly that, and works fine in components.

“There must be something more…?” But it turns out there’s not. Just shorthand class names to save you having to type padding-left:4px

pocketarc 3 hours ago | parent [-]

lg:dark:hover:bg-red-500

> on large screens

> in dark mode

> when hovering

> bg should be red-500

The above is an unrealistic example, but, you can't achieve that with the style attribute. You'd have to go into your stylesheet and put this inside the @media query for the right screen size + dark mode, with :hover, etc.

And you'd still need to have a class on the element (how else are you going to target that element)?

And then 6 months later you get a ticket to change it to blue instead. You open up the HTML, you look at the class of the element to remind yourself of what it's called, then you go to the CSS looking for that class, and then you make the change. Did you affect any other elements? Was that class unique? Do you know or do you just hope? Eh just add a new rule at the bottom of the file with !important and raise a PR, you've got other tickets to work on. I've seen that done countless times working in teams over the past 20 years - over a long enough timeline stylesheets all tend to end up a mess of overrides like that.

If you just work on your own, that's certainly a different discussion. I'd say Tailwind is still useful, but Tailwind's value really goes up the bigger the team you're working with. You do away with all those !important's and all those random class names and class naming style guide discussions.

I used to look at Tailwind and think "ew we were supposed to do CSS separate from HTML why are we just throwing styles back in the HTML". Then I was forced to use it, and I understood why people liked it. It just makes everything easier.

cluckindan 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which means most people don’t understand the basics of what they’re working on.

Tade0 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How is that different than inline styles?

azangru 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Very different :-) Inline styles do not have access to @-rules.

matt_kantor 15 hours ago | parent [-]

@scope[0] is perhaps a better comparison.

[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/A...

watwut 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Honestly, for me, tailwind was just pleasant to work with and pure css definitely was not.

And I was super skeptical about it at first. I almost said no to it, but I trusted our main ui guy and wanted to allow him autonomy. And I ended up loving tailwind after working with it.

azangru 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you remember what made it click for you? What was the hard part of writing plain CSS that tailwind made significantly easier?

christophilus 19 hours ago | parent [-]

CSS requires discipline, or you end up accidentally styling something completely unrelated because you were overly general, or overly specific, or accidentally reused a class name. CSS disallows local reasoning. If you’re writing markup for a component, you have to jump between two files.

There are plenty of other problems Tailwind solves, but these two alone make me never want to go back.

benjiro 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ignoring that Tailwind requires that same discipline... Pay close attention how often you end up in a situation where a different color was used, or how dark theme tags have been missing, and so much more.

What if you need to copy a element with tailwind, this later gets altered to include a slightly different style, but wait, now you have a original somewhere else in your code base, that is missing those updates. So you require the discipline just like CSS to keep things up to date.

Tailwind is great if you use it sporadically ... but have you looked at the source code of so many websites that use tailwind? Often their entire html file is a horrible mess million miles long tags.

I am amazed how often people do not even realizes that CSS supports nested Selectors? With nested Selectors, you get the benefit of creating actual component level structures, that can be isolated and shareable. Yet almost nobody uses them. I noticed that most people lack a lot of CSS knowledge, and they find it hard because they never stepped beyond the basics. Nor do they keep up to date.

hamandcheese 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What if you need to copy a element with tailwind, this later gets altered to include a slightly different style, but wait, now you have a original somewhere else in your code base, that is missing those updates. So you require the discipline just like CSS to keep things up to date.

You solve these problems by creating abstractions in JavaScript (most likely react components), exactly the same way you'd solve any other sort of code duplication.

By using tailwind (or inline styles), you go from two system of abstraction (CSS, JavaScript) to one (just JavaScript).

paradox460 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The situation you describe is one of the most maddening things about tailwind, and what leads to most of it being write only code, in my opinion

azangru 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree with you about discipline; but... was it not interesting to discover how to build such a discipline? Was it not intriguing to learn how people who had been writing CSS for years had made it tolerable?

Besides, there recently have been several crucial improvements to CSS to address these pain points. One is CSS layers, which lets define custom layers of specificity that help with the discipline (e.g. resets or some baseline styles go in a low layer, component styles go in a higher layer, and finally overrides end up in the highest layer). The other is CSS scope, which prevents the leakage of the styles. These should greatly help with the specificity issues; and @layer is now sufficiently broadly supported that it is safe to use.

> If you’re writing markup for a component, you have to jump between two files.

Yeah; one of the reasons for my question about the groups in which tailwind saw the biggest growth was that in some ecosystems jumping between files was not a problem to begin with. Vue, for instance, had single-file components, where css could be written in the same file as javascript. So did svelte. So does astro.

jen20 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> was it not interesting to discover how to build such a discipline? Was it not intriguing to learn how people who had been writing CSS for years had made it tolerable?

As someone who writes tiny amounts of CSS these days (having known it reasonably in the late 90s and early 2000s with all the hacks and IE related bullshit), I have _zero_ interest in it.

If I'm doing it, it's only because there's no serious cross-platform equivalent to Windows Forms to power small experiments, and curiosity is certainly not there to improve the experience.

christophilus 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’ve been building web sites and applications since 2000. I’ve done just about everything you can imagine SCSS, BEM, whatever. Tailwind is the best thing I’ve seen in that time.

We can agree to disagree about that, and that’s OK.

I should note that other than Clojure, I absolutely hate dynamically typed languages. I suspect (though dunno how to prove it) that folks who like Tailwind probably like statically typed systems and maybe functional programming- it seems to fit into that philosophical niche. And probably people who like vanilla CSS are in a different category.

I’d love to hear from both camps to find out whether or not that tracks.

azangru 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> I suspect ... that folks who like Tailwind probably like statically typed systems and maybe functional programming- it seems to fit into that philosophical niche. And probably people who like vanilla CSS are in a different category.

I love vanilla CSS, love typescript, have a huge respect for functional programming, but also don't mind OOP ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

tisdadd 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is why I loved polymer 1 and it's adoption of the shadow dom.

nojs 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What drove that growth?

It is a natural fit with component-based frontend frameworks like React. You keep the styles with the component instead of having to work in two places. And it’s slightly nicer than writing inline styles.

The core CSS abstraction (separating “content” from “presentation”) was always flimsy but tailwind was the final nail in that coffin.

Then of course LLMs all started using it by default.

paradox460 17 hours ago | parent [-]

You've been able to keep the styles in the component well before tailwind turned the class attribute into ersatz inline styling. CSS-in-JS has been around for a decade, and there are myriad options for react. Vue and Svelte have them built in.

paradox460 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fe devs who refuse to learn css and instead use tailwind have always struck me as incredibly odd. It's like a carpenter who refuses to use a hammer because they hit their thumb once as an apprentice

I wrote this piece on tailwind a few years back, and little seems to have changed https://pdx.su/blog/2023-07-26-tailwind-and-the-death-of-cra...

sefrost 17 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s interesting to me because CSS is very stable. It doesn’t really change that often. It’s great foundational knowledge to have for people who build for the web.

paradox460 17 hours ago | parent [-]

And nearly every step it's made has been for the better. I used sass on that blog, because a few corner case features weren't widely available when I last did work on the style, but for the last 3 projects I've worked on, I don't use it anymore. Pure css can do basically everything I needed before. Sure, I bundle using bun's bundler, but that's for performance optimization, nothing more

kaicianflone 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I haven’t seen this mentioned much, but Tailwind’s rise closely followed a shift away from runtime CSS-in-JS toward build-time, deterministic styling.

Many JSX-era libraries (MUI, styled-components, Emotion) generate styles at runtime, which works fine for SPAs but creates real friction for SSR, streaming, and time-to-first-paint (especially for content-heavy or SEO-sensitive domains).

As frameworks like Next.js, Vue, Svelte, Angular, and now RSC all moved server-first, teams realized they couldn’t scale entire domains as client-only SPAs without performance and crawler issues.

Tailwind aligned perfectly with that shift: static CSS, smaller runtime bundles, predictable output, and zero hydration coupling. It wasn’t about utility classes. It was about build-time certainty in a server-rendered world :)

dustingetz 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

backend devs needing to be fullstack but consider frontend to be beneath them

gofreddygo 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> CSS is pleasant

So is SQL. To me. But some otherwise rational people have an irrational dislike of sql. Almost like someone seeking to seal a small bruise with wire mesh because bandaids are hard to rip off. The consequence shows with poorly implemented schema-free nosql and bloated orm tools mixed in with sql.

But some folks just like it that way. And most reasons boil down to a combination of (1) a myopic solution to a hyper specific usecase or (2) an enterprise situation where you have a codebase written by monkeys with keyboards and you want to limit their powers for good or (3) koolaid infused resume driven development.

DangitBobby 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Decades of SQL hate eviscerated in one comment! /s

poor_frog 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'll give my guess - it's because of rhe "fullstack" bullshit.

I am a backend developer. I like being a backend developer. I can of course do more than that, and I do. Monitoring, testing, analysis, metrics, etc.

I can do frontend development, of course I can. But I don't like it, I don't approach it with any measure of care. It's something I "unfortunately have to do because someone who is not a developer thought that declaring everyone should be doing everything was a good idea".

I don't know how to do things properly on the front end, but I definitely can hammer them down to a shape that more or less looks like it should. For me, shit like Bootstrap or Tailwind or whatever is nice. I have to spend less time fiddling with something I think is a waste of my time.

I love working with people that are proper front end developers for that reason, and I always imagined they would prefer things more native such as plain CSS.

hahahahhaah 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is CSS pleasant in teams of fullstack (not CSS specialists)? Not in my experience. It becomes a maze of Chesterton's fences.

azangru 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I would have understood if tailwind got popular primarily among full-stack or backend developers: people who have neither time nor interest to learn CSS deeply. But, what contradicts this expectation is that one still needs to acquire CSS knowledge to use tailwind, and that some front-end developers seem to prefer it as well. Although I still cannot tell whether there are more front-end developers who prefer tailwind over plain CSS than the other way around.

hahahahhaah 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I was too subtle but the issue is less understanding CSS and more collaborating in a team where someone decides to add a specific rule that fixes something applies on every page but makes no sense semantically.

Then do that 100 times to create spaghetti. CSS rule anywhere can affect anything whereas tailwind is more local.

You can also bricklay it along lines of components in React, so you know how X component renders always and it wont look like a pig when tranplanted to the legacy billing screen.

I now recall why I like tailwind! Been backending for a while now (zero regrets lol)

cluckindan 17 hours ago | parent [-]

The irony is that Tailwind is not semantic at all.

hahahahhaah 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Thats not irony so much as the reason. BYO semantics (using React most likely)

It is style assembler.

cluckindan 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It is horrible and I would never choose to use it.

misir 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Tailwind is just bootstrap with marketing budget

fpauser 15 hours ago | parent [-]

nah