I can’t argue with that. But it suggests that if you work alone or in a small group, actually learning CSS might make more sense.
Because it provides a copy-pastable subset of reliable classes where you end result will look good.
As a company we are often hired to fill a knowledge gap (exactly in design and front-end). The nature of agency work is to leave a deliverable for the client to work with.
My idea is that when the project is over and the design/front-end gap still exists in the team, perhaps it is better to leave something more manipulatable (I used the word malleable originally).
I think with the great docs that Tailwind has it might be easier for someone who is not a front-end dev to manipulate a `<div class="p-4">` to `<div class="p-3">` than to come across a BEM/ITCSS component, written in SCSS* where you have to understand much more concepts to manipulate it skillfully.
*(our preferred stack really)
What I needed today is for a rando on the internet to call me stupid, a dev who doesn't fully grasp CSS + design.
I use tailwindcss and so do other devs. Many of those devs are better than me and you.
Instead of assuming that everyone who disagrees with your choices is stupid, maybe reflect on popularity of tailwindcss and assume, in an Ockham's Razor kind of way, that it's a good technology. Even if it's not a technology that you personally want to use.
Just like I, a front-end dev + designer am thankful for something like Firebase, because my backend skills are fairly nonexistent.
We need to move past the rhetoric of “Tailwind is for people who don’t know CSS”, when it’s only true in a correlatory sense because the majority of tech is always going to be newcomers. People who are CSS experts are just as capable of concluding that these newer paradigms are worth investing their time in.
I believe that quick deliverable you mention, will become a big burden for that client in some future.
I saw already multiple projects where both Tailwind and regular CSS are used. This seems like unavoidable, since Tailwind looks like easy-peasy, but it actually can't be understood and without understanding CSS in the first place. Maintaining this kind of mix must be fun...
It's kind of sad that not-learning is hyped over mastering.
“I can forever claim that people should just learn CSS but if that happens to be a difficult thing, maybe we should try to make a deliverable that is more… malleable.”
I could have misinterpreted that, however; I found much of the writing confusing.
I think this is probably one of the most common sources of complaints. Some people who already know CSS in-depth will see Tailwind being endorsed by others, take a look themselves, and come to the conclusion "why on earth would I ever use this".
I totally understand that, because it's how I feel. But it's important to remember that people still want to style things without being CSS experts, and one of the things Tailwind is good at is letting that happen. It clearly fills a need and yelling at the proverbial clouds isn't going to help.
But for the life of me I could never come up with a consistent set of rules like margins, paddings, colors etc.
Tailwind is a mini design system on its own (even if it's "just a utility-first CSS framework"). I don't have to spend too much time thinking which margins to add or set the typography right. Set an `m-2` and a `text-sm`, and you're done :)
All/Most of that can definitely be replicated with, say, CSS vars, but then you're back to "okay, how do I consistently name these components".