Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Tailwind CSS Won

matt-rickard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 559 posts

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#241

Post by ajanuary »

deprecative wrote: post #190
conradfr wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These refer to customizable variables and breakpoints that everyone using the library and having done css would know and you can probably click on your IDE to get to their definition. 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.

You're just using someone else's padding and margin classes. At least when you write your own it makes sense instead of Tailwind's alphabet soup bloat.

Not really. Tailwind lets you configure your own spacing and breakpoints. You get to pick what those numbers mean.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#242

Post by dtagames »

jongjong wrote: post #205
keyle wrote: post #140

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_,…

Agree 100%. CSS is so good nowadays. Tailwind is yet another over-engineered hack of a framework foisted upon us. A solution looking for a problem. You don't need it. Do devs these days even know about Web Components and shadow DOM? You can define per-component styles now with CSS selectors to target any child elements within the component and you can do it in such a way that the styles are contained within the compo…

++ for mentioning web components and the shadow DOM. They are the end of the road for prepackaged frameworks, IMHO.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#243

Post by dahwolf »

It's ironic that "costly context-switching" is listed as one of the primary reasons, as this normally is considered a "feature".

Modern front-end development heavily embraces small components, composability, clean abstractions, reusability, higher order state, decoupling of error logic, testability, and so on.

The natural consequence of this paradigm is that when your PM says "hey, can you make a small change to this online form?", you'll be context-switching between many files.

The idea that you currently can do "application logic" in your HTML/JSX is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#245

Post by whstl »

progx wrote: post #183
randomdigitz wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve learned CSS, used Bootstrap, and tried a bunch of other tools. Tailwind ecosystem is the fast approach to building web UIs in my experience. It doesn’t matter if you know CSS or not. Nobody gains if you know CSS per se. People gain when you deliver finished projects. Tailwind helps ship projects faster.

That is the point: which kind of projects? You all fight, but nobody says what exactly they develop. A webpage and Tailwind is absolutely fun. An app with reusable complex components, Tailwind is a pain. Themes, dynamic tailwind is a pain, static, tailwind is ok. There are endless possibilities. The problem is, that some people think you can use Tailwind for everything and then they made simple things unnecessary com…

I disagree 100% with that. I much prefer using Tailwind for complex apps with reusable components. Because then you don't have a lot of repetition, redundancy is as much as BEM.

For static webpages (unless it is assembled by a static blog engine or something), I don't particularly enjoy it, because of the repetition.

With components+Tailwind you have as much duplication as you'd have with pure BEM.

All personal experience and opinion, of course.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#246

Post by emmacharp »

ethanbond wrote: post #230
emmacharp wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Almost certainly) worse? Haha. Why would it be? If you really want to, you can even use Tailwind's naming for you language file. The thing is, you add complexity to do a job that could be done in the same way without adding complexity and dependencies. Shouldn't we try to justify added complexity through added value?

> why would it be? Because most frontend engineers cannot make something as visually appealing as Tailwind’s defaults and most designers cannot make frontend abstractions as ergonomic as Tailwind’s. Now it seems like you’re suggesting just reimplementing Tailwind? Or yes you can have one of your FE engineers and one designer try to dream up your own Tailwind but again: why? Now you’re consuming two people for somethi…

If the Tailind defaults are used in a design language file, wouldn't it be simpler? If it's only a problem of "aesthetics", 20 minutes is enough to use Tailwind's defaults in pure CSS. No need for calling a designer here either.

Side benefits include that there is then no need to update any dependencies or library, no need to run a JIT server, no need for a new syntax, no need to wait for implementation of new CSS features, better performance possibilities, etc.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#247

Post by meerita »

keyle wrote: post #140

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_,…

The only thing that is true is people don't learn CSS but Tailwind syntax. But even with that, making a house of card of CSS isn't change the inherited problems of CSS.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#248

Post by JoeyJoJoJr »

epolanski wrote: post #182
keyle wrote: post #140

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_,…

+1. Let's say things how they are: Tailwind is a small catastrophe from an implementation, performance and maintenance point of views. It got few things quite well in being a more modern bootstrap, had a stellar marketing and it's color palettes are really well done and leagues above the default material ones. ...that being said... Tailwind's biggest pro is that it allows people that _don't_ know css that much to sty…

I was resistant to Tailwind for a long time, and recently I decided to try it on a recent project. IMO it lives up to its reputation and has changed the game for me.

The biggest pro for Tailwind is that it is exceptionally well designed. Aside from adding one single custom style to the Tailwind configuration, I have not needed to venture outside of the system it provides despite writing many bespoke components.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#249

Post by xtian »

llamaimperative wrote: post #200
epolanski wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1. Let's say things how they are: Tailwind is a small catastrophe from an implementation, performance and maintenance point of views. It got few things quite well in being a more modern bootstrap, had a stellar marketing and it's color palettes are really well done and leagues above the default material ones. ...that being said... Tailwind's biggest pro is that it allows people that _don't_ know css that much to sty…

None of this mirrors my experience whatsoever. That’s “how things are” for me. I know CSS very well and Tailwind is probably the largest productivity boost I’ve encountered since, I don’t know, learning vim? It’s way faster than SASS/SCSS which is itself way faster than raw CSS. It also yields far more self-contained and more readily composable components than any other styling mechanism. Your comment doesn’t resonat…

My experience mirrors yours 100%. What the parent comments seem to be describing are Tailwind in a context where people don’t know CSS that well. Yes, that will be a catastrophe. But so will SASS or vanilla CSS — even more so. Tailwind is a utility, not a replacement for fundamental knowledge.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#250

Post by yurishimo »

nisegami wrote: post #195
broast wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sad to hear. Good CSS with an intuitive DOM structure is simple to achieve yet so powerful. Hate to see devs give up that power.

Complex solutions are much, much easier than simple solutions.

Exactly this. Anyone who has worked with a junior developer understands this intuitively. They spend a week smashing their head against the desk figuring something out, then in review, you (the senior dev) can look at it for 30 seconds and see all the holes they missed and think of a simpler solution that uses 1/3 the amount of code.

Simplicity is a skill and it's hard to do. There's a reason most people are not minimalists despite the almost universal western desire to "have less stuff".

Post reply on HN