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

491–500 of 559 posts

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#491

Post by highwaylights »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #214

I work every day with web projects, and the notion "Tailwind won" in any capacity sounds like a thunder from a clear sky. If we see more articles to that effect and this is not an outlier, it means the Tailwind cult is in its "red dwarf" stage, where the community becomes smaller, but denser and more convinced than ever that the entire world is a copy of their small bubble. That's good, it means in a few years Tailwi…

.NET would like a chat, and frankly, someone to finally notice and say something kind. It's been a long 20 years out in the cold.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#492

Post by _jesse »

gaoshan wrote: post #342
iambateman wrote: post #319

Btw Tailwind isn’t a religion…if you don’t want to use it, that’s fine. It has helped a lot of people - myself included - write more and better CSS but I don’t understand the vitriol here. If you want to write vanilla CSS or BEM or Sass or Less, I think that’s great.

Most folks would agree with you that we can use what we like but that isn't the reason for the vitriol. I think most of the vitriol comes from the way the it is presented as "the winner" when a lot of people either actively dislike it or would never chose to use it. I dislike Tailwind and would never choose it so seeing it presented as if it climbed to the top of some pile makes me laugh out loud and based on the com…

I think it's because the people that like tailwind really like tailwind, and they will take any opportunity to tell you how amazing it is. The evangelism gets really old after a while.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#493

Post by jonwinstanley »

arrowsmith wrote: post #486
jonwinstanley wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has anything in tech ever actually died? I guess there will be people building sites in React forever. Haha

Does anyone, anywhere still use Coffeescript?

Hahaha. Ok yes, there definitely are also some things that die.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#494

Post by jonwinstanley »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #475
jonwinstanley wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it depends if you're trying to build the perfect website, or just want to get something launched fast. I usually build websites to solve a problem, or to try out a business idea. The structure of the HTML and whether I am using a web framework are not important to me. The main thing is, can I get this finished and looking great in a few days.

I hear this argument a lot, on the surface it makes sense. We all want to ship fast. Right? But then... I try to imagine how Tailwind allows you to style your site in a few days, but it'd take you, the same person, what... weeks, to style it with CSS? It's so ridiculous it's making me laugh out loud just imagining this somehow. As if CSS is this thing for rocket engineers that is way beyond a common man's grasp? Seri…

Yes I agree. But people always move towards the tools that help them go a little faster.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#495

Post by mablopoule »

troupo wrote: post #431
mablopoule wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sadly not surprised to hear that, same for another poster who had the displeasure of working with a codebase with !important sprinkled everywhere. Truth is I've been spoiled on that front because I had the luck to work for many year in a company where the CTO was a very talented dude who lived and breathed HTML/CSS since the mid-2000's, and who was quite thoughtful about that kind of stuff, so I had a first-hand…

So, to have what you have you need a "very talented dude who lived and breathed CSS and HTML". Technology that makes it easier to make bad decisions than good decisions is not a good technology. > This is why it's a bit disheartening to see so many front-end framework working against the plateform, even even marketing against it None of the frameworks I know of do that.

True, but the thing is that it wasn't really "complicated" CSS we used, but simply a good grasp on the fundamental of CSS, which is a overlooked part of web development.

I believe it's mostly due to the fact that CSS, just like SQL, is one of those technology approachable enough to fiddle with it and get somewhat far, while not really learning it, and thus overlooking the fundamentals.

> None of the frameworks I know of do that.

I would squarely put into this category all the CSS-in-JS frameworks, such as 'styled components'. Also everything that markets the 'cascading' part of CSS as being a mistake.

Also, all the frameworks that compiles CSS without generating the CSS sourcemaps, making the debugging experience way less efficient since all the applied CSS rules shows under '' (eg: 'styled-components' again, who discarded it as being 'cosmetic' in the related Github issue).

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#496

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

onion2k wrote: post #291
Shrezzing wrote: post #118

I find Tailwind's claim that you can "build modern websites without ever leaving your HTML" to not be entirely correct. Instead of context switching from my `.html` to a `.scss` file, I just end up context switching to their documentation website to find the syntax they used. It's internally inconsistent, so you can't guess what the Tailwind class name is for styling, while you can do this for CSS on the majority of…

I just end up context switching to their documentation website to find the syntax they used. I don't, but I've been using Tailwind for a little while. Once you grok the syntax structure it's not that different to writing CSS.

If it's not that different, then you may as well just write CSS.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#497

Post by sibit »

nkohari wrote: post #467
sibit wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The corresponding property in CSS is color, not font-color. So why not color-{color}-{shade}?

Because text-{color}-{shade} is more descriptive of what the color affects. Again color is not an aspect of the font (which is the typeface plus styling like weight, size, etc.) so naming it font-{color}-{shade} would be technically incorrect. (You can argue that ignoring this technicality would result in a cleaner API, but the comment I was replying to was suggesting it was a mistake, which it isn't.)

One person's intentional choice is another's inconsistent mistake. I like to think that's what makes software wonderful yet endlessly frustrating.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#498

Post by corny »

nkohari wrote: post #420
sibit wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the minor inconsistencies that prevented me from using Tailwind on any serious projects. I've never been able to get past their choice to use text-{color} instead of font-{color}.

That isn't an inconsistency, it's an intentional choice. The color of the text is an aspect of the text, not of the font. The corresponding property in CSS is color, not font-color.

But "color" doesn't apply to just text. Changing the color of an element affects the currentColor and applies to default border colors. The property name "color" makes more sense than "text-color" imho.

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#499

Post by blitz_skull »

hinkley wrote: post #332
blitz_skull wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool hot-take but it’s not true. You’re literally learning CSS when you learn tailwind. And no one (good) picks up a tool solely because it’s shiny, they pick it up because they find it has utility, which evidently LOTS of people do. And if you don’t think it’s reusable then you at least need to bring an argument for why that’s so because the docs, personal anecdote, and the opinion of LOTS of people is completely op…

> And no one (good) picks up a tool solely because it’s shiny The amount of cargo culting going on right now is at an all time high. People do stuff all the time that makes no goddamned sense and is defended by, “well Google is doing it!” You are not Google and you never will be.

Emphasis on "good". I don't classify developers who base their decisions on "Well Google is doing it" as "good".

Re: Why Tailwind CSS Won

#500

Post by blitz_skull »

weo3dev wrote: post #383
blitz_skull wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool hot-take but it’s not true. You’re literally learning CSS when you learn tailwind. And no one (good) picks up a tool solely because it’s shiny, they pick it up because they find it has utility, which evidently LOTS of people do. And if you don’t think it’s reusable then you at least need to bring an argument for why that’s so because the docs, personal anecdote, and the opinion of LOTS of people is completely op…

I vehemently disagree. When you're using tailwind, you're learning Tailwind, which is using CSS in absolutely the unequivocally anti-CSS way. CSS was meant to cascade; it's what the damn 'C' stands for, and if you cannot understand the efficiency of the cascade, at scale, you are most definitely missing the entire point of CSS. I have personally built ui libraries for boutique firms and enterprise (Apple) firms and g…

Actually, the "C" in CSS stands for "Mistake". Cascading styles are not a good idea, and Tailwind encourages using styles in a way that makes sense for a component-first web.

If you want to cascade all your styles all the way down, by all means go for it. However, I aim for readable / scalable styles rather than dogmatically "cascading" everything just because it's in the name.

Post reply on HN