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

Tailwind UI

tailwindui.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 367 posts

Re: Tailwind UI

#71

Post by newfeatureok »

The problem with this IMO is that some enterprising person will just use regular tailwind (or another utility-css framework like tachyons) and re-implement all of these components and give it out for free, circumventing the license and killing the value of this.

Normally with themes it would be time prohibitive to do so, but the nature of utility-css is that it's relatively straightforward to implement each component, even without looking at the CSS that's obviously easy to inspect.

I think what they should do is build a tool that let's you build your entire site using these components and charge for that. Otherwise, I guarantee within a year of today, 2/26/20 there will be a free version of this on GitHub created by the community.

---

On a side note, if some bored person out there wants to make a huge splash in the CSS community, figuring out a way to target a specific DOM element, create the equivalent of an AST and specify a "dictionary", which would be a utility-css framework (tailwind, tachyons, basecss, etc) and finally reimplement the targeted DOM element in the chosen framework would be amazing.

Assuming you buy into utility-css, that would remove all existing friction in adopting it. Then that would mean you could grab an existing theme [1] and convert it to tailwind components as desired.

1 - https://themes.getbootstrap.com/preview/?theme_id=4231

Re: Tailwind UI

#72

Post by toastercat »

agluszak wrote: post #44

Shouldn't there be a possibility for one class to extend other or to somehow include or merge classes, such that btn = rounded + shadow + p-4? This would allow you to use utility classes as building blocks for semantic ones. (Disclaimer: I'm a backend dev and I don't know CSS well)

Yes, this is possible using the `@apply` directive: https://tailwindcss.com/docs/utility-first#maintainability-c...

Re: Tailwind UI

#73

Post by holler »

generalk wrote: post #24
chrshawkes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tired of excuses for inferior tooling. If you truly know CSS, Tailwind is a waste of time.

I've been reading awful takes like this since I started writing software. "PHP is an awful language, superior developers write in Perl." "Rails is bloated and slow, making it unfit for any real work." "True developers don't rely on frameworks, writing all your own code is the only way to be performant." If you wanna handicap yourself, be my guest. I've written three or so projects in TailwindCSS, and it lets me creat…

that may be so, but I think it's a valid point to bring up the tradeoffs you're making, including using a non-standard dsl that other designers/developers/hires will likely be unfamiliar with.

personally having written css since I was a teenager, my gut reaction is "eww", but if the team or stakeholders deem it to add value to a project and not affect productivity, sure why not?

Re: Tailwind UI

#74

Post by toastercat »

For everyone is who skeptical about utility-first "atomic" or "functional" CSS, and don't want to go through the hassle of getting Tailwind with necessary build steps set up, I'd recommend giving a smaller-scoped library such as Basscss a try. It's >3kb, you can include it using a CDN link, and it covers most of what you need to be productive.

https://basscss.com/

Re: Tailwind UI

#75

Post by Nullabillity »

larrywright wrote: post #11
chrshawkes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tired of excuses for inferior tooling. If you truly know CSS, Tailwind is a waste of time.

If you truly know assembler, C/Python/Ruby/Go is a waste of time. See how dumb that sounds?

Following that analogy, Tailwind is C files that only contain inline assembler blocks.

Yes, you can check off on your list that you no longer have any .S files. But did you actually gain anything?

Re: Tailwind UI

#76

Post by SPBS »

patricius wrote: post #49
efdee wrote: post #33

Judging from all the positive comments in this thread, clearly I must be missing something. This looks horrible to me. Instead of meaningful CSS classes you just get a bunch of small classes that do very small things, which you're supposed to combine until it looks like what you want. How is that better than writing your CSS manually? (Again, I realise the failure is probably on me. But I don't get it.)

I use Tachyons, which is also utility-based (and, afaik, an inspiration to Tailwind). The primary improvement is that the amount of CSS you need to write is reduced by 90 % or more. Okay, but now you have to write and repeat all these CSS class names, so what have you gained? Not having to write CSS is more than enough for me, but another important thing is that you get all the information you need in one place to se…

I’m using Tachyons over Tailwind because not needing a build step appeals to me. I vastly prefer the smaller footprint of Tachyons, but I do miss Tailwind’s comprehensive color palette sometimes. I could always manually add it in, but for now I’m sticking to Tachyons’s default colors to keep things simple.

Re: Tailwind UI

#77

Post by ahpearce »

nickjj wrote: post #21
atonse wrote: post #5

It's really nice, but is there something this pretty for bootstrap? I literally manage something like 10 different products/websites. And the only way to stay sane and have some pace with features is to use bootstrap for all of them (we currently use bootstrap for maybe 5 of them, and the rest were inherited sites that we're migrating). I love the look of this but don't have the time or the will to migrate all our si…

> It's really nice, but is there something this pretty for bootstrap? I've always liked the Bootstrap 4 CodeBase theme ($28): https://demo.pixelcave.com/codebase/be_pages_dashboard.php It's not the same exact look of course, but it has dozens of pages, widgets and components that look clean. It's all well formed code too with ES6 JS, Webpack, etc..

Wow, that one is pretty nice... Do you have any experience plugging this into, say, a react app? Fairly simple?

Re: Tailwind UI

#78

Post by wastedhours »

efdee wrote: post #33

Judging from all the positive comments in this thread, clearly I must be missing something. This looks horrible to me. Instead of meaningful CSS classes you just get a bunch of small classes that do very small things, which you're supposed to combine until it looks like what you want. How is that better than writing your CSS manually? (Again, I realise the failure is probably on me. But I don't get it.)

Not sure how it'd be on a proper-production level app, but for side projects, being able to just iterate on a single element is pretty neat.

I don't necessarily want to remember 30 different context-specific class names when adding a new link or button on a simple page if I know a bit of syntax I can get exactly what I want, when I want it.

Again, it's very much a project specific choice, but when you're playing and tweaking and having fun with a design (or simply, iterating on one element multiple times), it's a nice library.

That being said, I can imagine a point where once you're happy with a design, there'd be a push to refactor.

Re: Tailwind UI

#80

Post by betenoire »

agluszak wrote: post #44

Shouldn't there be a possibility for one class to extend other or to somehow include or merge classes, such that btn = rounded + shadow + p-4? This would allow you to use utility classes as building blocks for semantic ones. (Disclaimer: I'm a backend dev and I don't know CSS well)

IMO, as soon as you do this, you may as well use some other framework. You can no longer reason atomically about the class names when you are using @apply.
Post reply on HN