141–150 of 559 posts
I love tailwind, and I've been writing CSS professionally since CSS2.1. I have often debated with many developer friends why it has performed so well, and this article really missed some big reasons: 1. It's works extremely well with the current component-focused UI frameworks (react, svelte, etc). Subsequently, the verboseness that is often a complaint isn't an issue at all, but a feature. 2. Does everything out of…
I always felt slightly dirty after writing a bit of inline CSS (`style=”color: red“`) instead of a proper class, yet at the same time it accomplishes the goal and it was fast. So this is basically Tailwind, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully your link will be a component, so you only need replace one line anyway. Then again if your styles are abstracted to a component, your CSS framework is irrelevant!
Why would you use a component for something that's already a built-in HTML element?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you also use De Bruijn indices when programming so you don't have to name variables?
When I program I make all my variables global and name them with BEM to get the same great experience as in vanilla CSS.
Gray beard's 5c: Tailwind is a farce and a catastrophe. It's as modern as the style parameter is, and it's as reusable as a moving a dirt pile from one corner to the next. You're not learning anything valuable by learning Tailwind. Learn CSS, that will stick with you for the next 20 years. It amuses me when a library is implemented 'with tailwind', which means it's totally useless to the people _not using tailwind_,…
Tailwind maps onto CSS in a very straightforward way. I think you'd have to go out of your way to "learn Tailwind" without also improving your knowledge of CSS.
Silly premise and vapid article. Tailwind 'won' in the same way Bootstrap 'won', i.e. it was popular for a time. $10 says Tailwind will be the Bootstrap of 2027.
Well also bootstrap "died" in the most honorable way possible, it got antiquated by the CSS standard implementing flex and grids (the original specification was based on XUL though and not bootstrap - https://medium.com/@BennyOgidan/history-of-css-grid-and-css-... ) Kind of the same with jquery (although it took quite a lot of new stuff...) I feel like Tailwind won't get that
Components UI systems are not going away, even as we move back to static heavy sites and minimizing JS where ever possible.
Gray beard's 5c: Tailwind is a farce and a catastrophe. It's as modern as the style parameter is, and it's as reusable as a moving a dirt pile from one corner to the next. You're not learning anything valuable by learning Tailwind. Learn CSS, that will stick with you for the next 20 years. It amuses me when a library is implemented 'with tailwind', which means it's totally useless to the people _not using tailwind_,…
>You're not learning anything valuable by learning Tailwind. Learn CSS, that will stick with you for the next 20 years. Tailwind maps onto CSS in a very straightforward way. I think you'd have to go out of your way to "learn Tailwind" without also improving your knowledge of CSS.
I think I understand tailwind, but like the parent poster I'm really not a fan, because while CSS can be a footgun, it can also be quite clean when you use a sane DOM structure, CSS variables, and well thought out CSS selectors.
Once again, the "write once lots of small websites" people and the "maintain huge web apps" people, will be talking past each other. We share a base layer in HTML, CSS, JS, but the incentives, requirements, job environments, team sizes, couldn't be more different. I wonder about other languages and ecosystems. What would be a similar situation for e.g. C? Is there such a thing?
Well, the reason those web apps are huge might not be what you think.
Gray beard's 5c: Tailwind is a farce and a catastrophe. It's as modern as the style parameter is, and it's as reusable as a moving a dirt pile from one corner to the next. You're not learning anything valuable by learning Tailwind. Learn CSS, that will stick with you for the next 20 years. It amuses me when a library is implemented 'with tailwind', which means it's totally useless to the people _not using tailwind_,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you know the convention it's quite easy. I don't know Tailwind but with Bootstrap it would be m = margin, y = y axis, b = bottom, sm/lg = screen size, 4/5/6 = size
4/5/6 what? Bananas? And what exactly is “screen size”? Does it refer to physical size, or number of pixels? Does it count width, height, or both?
Personally I think that's way better than putting padding & margin in your own css classes.
It actually cuts down a lot on the custom css you need to write and also helps having a uniform design.