Did they really nuke the entire js config file? I have a number of advanced use cases that depend on it, like eliminating false-positive content matches.
You can still use it if you want, but most of the time it’s not needed anymore.
Tailwind CSS v4.0
181–190 of 296 posts
Re: Tailwind CSS v4.0
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I simply don't see the appeal. - Not having to name CSS classes - Easier to read as it's inline with the rest of your HTML - Standardised way of naming so that everywhere uses the same conventions - Not having to manage a separate file and remove unused components - Being able to use media queries, which I couldn't do in a style tag - No risk of changing a class that is used elsewhere. CSS has global scoping which…
no, a single html attribute containing "relative before:absolute before:top-0 before:h-px before:w-[200vw] before:bg-gray-950/5 dark:before:bg-white/10 before:-left-[100vw] after:absolute after:bottom-0 after:h-px after:w-[200vw] after:bg-gray-950/5 dark:after:bg-white/10 after:-left-[100vw]" is not "easier to read" (example taken at random from the Tailwind homepage)
Easier to figure out what to change without affecting other HTML components, though.
Re: Tailwind CSS v4.0
#183I'm not the biggest fan of Tailwind or anything, but good job on the release! Fewer dependencies and better performance are always welcome!
Re: Tailwind CSS v4.0
#184Was it really necessary to break all existing apps using `npx @tailwindcss`? It's an easy enough change to `npx @tailwindcss/cli` but we now have to go back and update all Apps and templates and since it uses v4 we now have to test every App to see if anything's broken with a v4 major release. Given its massive install base, surprised they wouldn't maintain backward compatibility with v3 and have an explicit opt-in u…
> Given its massive install base, surprised they wouldn't maintain backward compatibility with v3 and have an explicit opt-in upgrade path to v4.
Given it's a major version change, I'd expect it to create breaking changes, otherwise it would be a minor version change.
Re: Tailwind CSS v4.0
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tailwind has solved a lot of problems. And this is coming from someone who doesn't use it half the time. Some thoughts about this topic, not necessarily in disagreement: - Designers seldom think in the way you describe (explicit computer-readable rules, systems of design). A lot of designers are coming from crafts that are more implicit. It doesn't surprise me design business logic is not the topic of conversation. -…
I'm a designer, so I absolutely think in terms of design systems where typography is just one part of the puzzle. There are, of course, many ways to set type — but the point was: no Tailwind engineer talks about typographic scales in the first place. Systematic thinking is absent, which is naturally built in CSS.
Tailwind itself is a design system. The authors actually put together a short book explaining their point of view on design systems (without referencing Tailwind) and I found it very difficult to argue with any of their points.
Then you look at Tailwind and realize it’s almost entirely that book packaged for others to use.
Re: Tailwind CSS v4.0
#186I love tailwind, used in 3 projects in the past 4 years, it’s intuitive, well documented, simple. I don’t miss the days of emotion and styled components where I would have to think of a name for every styled div in the project, with tailwind a container is just a div and a few classes nothing else. Less bike shedding discussion, less brain cycles spent naming things, less time wasted in reviews.
> I don’t miss the days of emotion and styled components where I would have to think of a name for every styled div in the project I see people mention this issue fairly frequently, and it puzzles me a little. I have never once spent probably more than 1 second thinking about what to name something. Is it actually a blocker for some people? Are you really paralysed by this?
There was a time when BEM ruled (and scarred) the world. But names aren't a problem if you abandon the C in CSS and scope all styles to component.
Re: Tailwind CSS v4.0
#187As a once-strident critic of Tailwind for its many failings and incompatibilities with the state of the actually-modern "vanilla" web art, I am very pleased to see the huge strides they've made with v4. Being able to access the Tailwind theme through native CSS variables (they even have an example in the docs of a button component written in native CSS in an external stylesheet using native variables! Oh happy day!)…
> I suspect many of the pro/anti-Tailwind arguments are no longer relevant I feel there are two issues with Tailwind for me as a designer / design engineer. * First, JavaScript/Tailwind engineers have hijacked the conversation on design. Instead of "utility-first," "dead code elimination," and "type-safe CSS" I focus more on desing systems. Whether to use Perfect Fifth or Perfect Fourth in typography for example. * S…
[deleted]
Re: Tailwind CSS v4.0
#188Tailwind suits the kind of developers who hack things together and build up technical debt and spaghetti code rather thinking about things first and designing things properly.
I don't know. In 20+ years I have seen way more abominations and spaghetti CSS using other every CSS technique. With Tailwind at least I know what to expect, and the code in practice rarely deviates from what it's supposed to look like. I'm all for "not building up technical debt" and "thinking about things first" but in my personal experience the anti-Tailwind crowd doesn't have much to show here in this regard. Sur…
I feel like it is the same with ORMs argument is always "they don't know proper SQL so they use ORM instead".
Which usually from people I know is they do know SQL and ORM and "no ORM crowd" doesn't have much to show.
Exactly the same with Tailwind, I see coworkers doing Tailwind and knowing CSS well and not being "pure vegan CSS developers".
But on the other hand we don't hire people who would utter such things like "no ORM" or "no framework" because those were also as in experience people who would create technical debt for others to deal with.
Re: Tailwind CSS v4.0
#189Tailwind and Sveltekit are the reason why I still love doing FE after all these years. Initially I was so sceptical of TW. I simply can't work without it now. Huge thank you to authors for their hard work.
Re: Tailwind CSS v4.0
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I simply don't see the appeal. - Not having to name CSS classes - Easier to read as it's inline with the rest of your HTML - Standardised way of naming so that everywhere uses the same conventions - Not having to manage a separate file and remove unused components - Being able to use media queries, which I couldn't do in a style tag - No risk of changing a class that is used elsewhere. CSS has global scoping which…
no, a single html attribute containing "relative before:absolute before:top-0 before:h-px before:w-[200vw] before:bg-gray-950/5 dark:before:bg-white/10 before:-left-[100vw] after:absolute after:bottom-0 after:h-px after:w-[200vw] after:bg-gray-950/5 dark:after:bg-white/10 after:-left-[100vw]" is not "easier to read" (example taken at random from the Tailwind homepage)
Just viewing the source of the Tailwind homepage breaks me out in a cold sweat. And then there's:
> console.log(document.querySelectorAll("body > script").length)
27