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

Tailwind Isn't for Me

spicyweb.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 191 posts

Re: Tailwind Isn't for Me

#81

Post by globular-toast »

mablopoule wrote: post #36
globular-toast wrote: post #17

Tailwind is an abomination. Of course it's easier to use. Pressing the bold button in MS Word is easier than setting up styles etc, but one makes it easy to create an impossible to maintain mess that could have been made by a primary schooler, and one makes it possible to create a consistent style that looks professional. The only reason I think Tailwind is becoming popular now is it's exposing a bunch of things like…

I really dislike tailwind too, but I think there is lot of value for lots of people in the idea of having all the styles contained with the template and thus making copy-pasting of code easier without having to deal with the pesky 'Cascade' part of CSS. Personnaly, I love the cascading part when used correctly, along with the 'latest' evolution of CSS such as 'calc()', variables, on top of using CSS selectors.

Inline CSS already lets you have the styles in the template.

Re: Tailwind Isn't for Me

#82

Post by jamiedumont »

cryptonym wrote: post #64
mstipetic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s correct, this is such a curmudgeon take. Things we have have evolved over a long time, have been started hastily (JavaScript) and there’s no reason to believe we’re not in a local minimum and something much better is out there. I personally believe the js model is completely wrong for the browser and something like an actor model would fit much better. I’m not saying we…

I agree, it's exciting to have the industry trying gazillion things and see the survivors that get pushed into standards. It's much less exciting to have your project tied to frameworks (generic statement, not about Tailwind) that rot, requires massive rewrites on update, are unstable and forces you into non-standard stuff that tends to not interoperate well with the external world. I'm puzzled to see the popularity…

I feel we need a club for grumpy old men that yell at clouds! I'm only 34 but after 10 years doing this I now fully understand what my seniors were trying to teach me when I started.

Boring technologies that work and will continue to work with the minimum of lock-in and fuss long into the future are what get me excited now.

Re: Tailwind Isn't for Me

#84

Post by timeon »

PUSH_AX wrote: post #10

I love tailwind. I strongly feel that most modern CSS solutions are massively overthought. In engineering we have bigger problems to solve than a key/value list that makes a div blue. Tailwind removes the thinking around CSS, naming, preprocessors etc etc, it just lets me write good CSS and focus on components and other engineering problems. I seem to be one of the few people who can read CSS properties horizontally…

> most modern CSS solutions are massively overthought

Example is Tailwind. Which in the end is same as inline CSS.

Re: Tailwind Isn't for Me

#85

Post by Franzeus »

PUSH_AX wrote: post #10

I love tailwind. I strongly feel that most modern CSS solutions are massively overthought. In engineering we have bigger problems to solve than a key/value list that makes a div blue. Tailwind removes the thinking around CSS, naming, preprocessors etc etc, it just lets me write good CSS and focus on components and other engineering problems. I seem to be one of the few people who can read CSS properties horizontally…

I love tailwind too. The article did not convince me as there was also no real solution / alternative proposed.

I have written custom css since the year 2000 and using tailwind just makes me much faster (is like setting flags) and simply by reading it, I understand how an element looks like. No matter if my past-self wrote it or another engineer.

It can pollute the HTML (although @apply helps a lot to define your reusable .title, .card, .btn, .btn-lg, .btn-primary etc), but at least it is written in HTML and not in JS, which is even harder to transfer to other eco-systems.

Also extending styles (tailwind config) is amazing if you want to reuse your styles in other projects.

Re: Tailwind Isn't for Me

#86

Post by 9dev »

omer_balyali wrote: post #73
9dev wrote: post #44

I can't understand why people bother about HTML with long class attributes so much. If you use "btn" instead of a long string of Tailwind classes, you just move the actual CSS properties into a stylesheet file, which you need to switch back and forth to just to change the looks of that button. And having said that, when using Tailwind with some kind of component-centred framework, those classes will be local to a com…

If you need to adopt the HTML to fit a certain style, you're doing it wrong. HTML should be a semantic markup, it shouldn't change much when you need to change the styling/CSS. So you don't really go "back-and-forth" to architecture CSS, you just write your CSS. But maybe it's a Tailwind thing that you need to add additional elements to HTML just to be able to style it correctly, I'm not sure. It's like saying you sh…

I don't know about you, but I've never seen anyone create a user interface by writing down the full, semantic markup, and then proceed to create CSS for that finished HTML structure. Instead, it's usually an iterative process of adding HTML, styling that, then adding more content.

That isn't even related to Tailwind, or any other CSS framework -- just that Tailwind allows you to stay in the HTML (or component) context, without having to switch to a stylesheet there.

Your JSON comparison doesn't fit: We're talking about styling, not business logic. But if you mean that I would need to define `"userAgeOver21": true` in a JSON file instead of having some `{{ %if user.age > 21 }}` in the code, then yes, I'm firmly in the latter camp. Not having to switch context often overrules pedantic purity every time.

Re: Tailwind Isn't for Me

#87

Post by gryzzly »

Lucasoato wrote: post #69

Disclaimer: I’m extremely newbie in front end, probably less than 6 months of experience combined in the last 6 years. I can’t stress enough how easy it is using Tailwind, it just works! I don’t care about the long ass lines because for how I’m used to format html pages, I’d have to go to a new line anyway, it’s just that now I can understand what’s happening in react components without too many troubles. Another plu…

yeah, it works, but try getting back to this codebase in 3 months and then refactor something small. worse, it’s someone else who will have to do it after you.

Re: Tailwind Isn't for Me

#88

Post by s0laster »

9dev wrote: post #49
dbbk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not Styled Components? I've been using them for years now and I'm extremely productive. Tailwind on the other hand looks like a hellish nightmare, horizontal reading, proprietary syntax, no selector targeting of other components.

If horizontal reading bothers you so much it resembles a hellish nightmare (Dante would like to have a word with you), nobody stops you from going like this: Submit And you actually can target other components. There are lots of sibling selectors, including named groups: Name

Damn, that's an awesome trick, thanks for sharing!

Re: Tailwind Isn't for Me

#89

Post by onion2k »

dbbk wrote: post #76
onion2k wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tailwind on the other hand looks like a hellish nightmare, horizontal reading, proprietary syntax, no selector targeting of other components. Is "horizontal reading" worse than reading two files? What if the other file is actually 30 files compiled with SASS? What if they're 30 files, compiled with SASS, and written by a bunch of devs who don't know CSS well, didn't use BEM or anything to name things well, and didn't…

> Is "horizontal reading" worse than reading two files? I see this complaint a lot but I don't really get it. You can have a styled component in the same file or a separate file. In VSCode, you just command click on the component and you go straight to the style definition. Not an issue. > What if the other file is actually 30 files compiled with SASS? I only work in Styled Components-exclusive codebases so can't com…

You got bigger problems

Yes, you have. And this is really, really common in large scale web apps, especially where they've been mostly written by people who are 'backend' or 'full stack' developers.

Tailwind didn't just spring forth as a tool to screw with web developers. It was developed as a solution to a problem. That problem being bad, unmanaged CSS at scale. If you don't have that problem obviously Tailwind isn't going to look useful to you.

Re: Tailwind Isn't for Me

#90

Post by timeon »

SebastianKra wrote: post #45

Decent arguments. Ultimately, I think your preference comes down to: - Do you care about how your html output looks? - I personally don't, just like I don't care about what my Webpack bundle looks like. Web standards will always be slower to evolve, which is why we build tooling on top. - How do you think web components will be used? - I believe they will be used sparsely, only by libraries. But if you want to replac…

also:

- Do you care for bloat user needs to download?

Post reply on HN