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

181–190 of 559 posts

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#181

Post by zztop44 »

Incipient wrote: post #154
wildrhythms wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might surprise you but most industry web development today is using components powered by a framework, and Tailwind fits in perfectly to the close coupling of styles to components.

But in components with scoped styling, you're better off just using css directly. Create a class that has all the styles you want, then use it in the HTML - nicely and cleanly separates css and HTML code.

Why do you want to separate the CSS and HTML? They’re both style info, especially in component design.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#182

Post by epolanski »

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 style stuff more consistently and easily. But that's where it ends.

Sadly there's a lot of issues when it comes to maintenance. Any small update in tailwind will break your application. !important s are shoved pretty everywhere, they will unavoidably clash, prompt you to override even more styles.

There's yet another complication with tailwind: the moment you want to do something more complex with tailwind or that it clashes with its own styles/rules you're in a bad corner where you need to know bot advanced css AND tailwind.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#183

Post by progx »

randomdigitz wrote: post #171
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_,…

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 complicated.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#184

Post by thrixton »

troupo wrote: post #156
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_,…

> You're not learning anything valuable by learning Tailwind. 1. You need to know CSS to use Tailwind 2. I learned and understood quite a few of things I rarely use thanks to Tailwind's amazing docs. Docs that are non-existent for CSS 3. I'm reasonably good with CSS, but I could never come up with a consistent and minimal design system that Tailwind offers That said, to things everyone should read to up their CSS gam…

Having a prebuilt consistent design system that you don’t have to build out for each project, arguing over defaults among the team is a lifesaver.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#185

Post by larrymyers »

domh wrote: post #133

As a primarily backend person, I like it that our frontend uses tailwind due to the copy-and-pastable aspect. I can nab an element from another part of the site and adapt, or take an element from https://tailwindui.com/ and know that it will paste in and look exactly as intended. It doesn't look good, or particularly inline with the style of the rest of the site but is good enough as placeholder UI before frontend/de…

What causes me to constantly shudder is when I have to use project wide search to find the class name on an element so I can see what was caused the computed styles in the browser to occur.

  1. Find source file with class name. See the scss extension, dread rises a bit.
  2. See scss file has multiple @import directives and uses multiple custom functions.
  3. Open up 4 more scss files to see what those imports and functions do. See that those files also use @import directives. Find some Malort, take a shot.
  4. Repeat step 3 until arriving at root of style hierarchy or pass out.
That's why Tailwind works. It may result in a very long line of small classnames to represent all the styles across many breakpoints, but at least you don't have to deal with somebody else's own little hellish adventure into perfectly reusable scss.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#186

Post by deprecative »

troupo wrote: post #156
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_,…

> You're not learning anything valuable by learning Tailwind. 1. You need to know CSS to use Tailwind 2. I learned and understood quite a few of things I rarely use thanks to Tailwind's amazing docs. Docs that are non-existent for CSS 3. I'm reasonably good with CSS, but I could never come up with a consistent and minimal design system that Tailwind offers That said, to things everyone should read to up their CSS gam…

If you know CSS why are you using Tailwind which is esoteric CSS but worse? Just use CSS.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#187

Post by progx »

randomdigitz wrote: post #176
mablopoule wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the whole "Cascading" part. 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.

Tailwind is a means to an end. If you think writing css is the best way to spend your time, go for it. But I guarantee I can ship things faster using Tailwind.

Which things? Individual styled simple elements? Sure. Complex reusable and customizeable components, no way.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#188

Post by emmacharp »

I never got how is "context switching" such a problem. I mean, can't you have like, two files opened side-by-side in different IDE panels? Is it really that hard to "look jump" from one another? This justifies the amount of overhead added by a library like this?

If I can be blunt: I find this "argument" to be lazy as **. Sorry but "context switching" is just a fancy name for "having two files opened at the same time", which shouldn't be a problem, no?

PS: And almost all the other stated advantages of this approach seem to be as low value as this one considering the implied costs.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#189

Post by progx »

sod wrote: post #45

If css had a strong opinion and better syntax for responsiveness by screen width, css frameworks were way less popular. Tailwind, bootstrap and co. aren't used to avoid writing css. It's used because writing `class="my-4 mb-sm-5 mb-lg-6"` is so much faster and easier then doing this with a bunch of media queries and a class name, that has to be unique, because css is a global scope nightmare. I mean, just look at it.…

And you write this crap `class="my-4 mb-sm-5 mb-lg-6"`hundreds of times in complex applications or `class="foo"`?

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#190

Post by deprecative »

conradfr wrote: post #150
xigoi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.
Post reply on HN