Hacker News Reader

Comment by _vufv | Hacker News Reader

With no disrespect to anyone, I think it'd be useful if people bashing Tailwind would briefly list what their day to day programming consists of.

My impression is that most of the negative comments are coming from people that don't code for Web often (I could be wrong). To those folks: I'm not saying you don't know your stuff or that you argue badly - since I was on that side myself a few months back.

What I am saying is that the elegance and pragmatism of Tailwind might not be easy to intuit just by reading about it. Try to implement a simple landing page using Tailwind+TailwindUI and see if any lightbulbs gets lit.

View on HN

I've been a web dev for about 10 years. My day to day now involves building out React-based applications dealing with both the backend and frontend. I put in the work and built a real side project using Tailwind and it was so annoying.

When you write anything substantial you end up with class name soup. The answer to this is to use `@apply` which is literally just a normal CSS class with extra steps.

The new vernacular just means that users have to learn Tailwind language rather than proper CSS.

CSS modules solve the main problems that Tailwind attempts to solve. The other things are solved with use of CSS variables.

The only thing that I find useful in Tailwind is the responsive design classes. Being able to do `md:<some other style here>` is pretty cool.

To me, Tailwind seems valuable to newer engineers because they feel like they don't have to learn CSS. They learn "Tailwind." It's like all those people who would say "I don't know JavaScript, I know jQuery." Like jQuery, there are benefits in having a unified language especially when you're newer. I believe that a better solution to styling is inevitable (my latest favorite heavily uses CSS variables). I do not believe Tailwind is the best way forward.

Sure. Frontend development, mostly on a single React-based project, for which we receive mockups from a dedicated designer. Using CSS modules, with SCSS (not sure we even needed the SCSS; we do sometimes use its nesting and ampersands; but I think we could have just as well written vanilla CSS syntax).

Other times, I would write web components with lit. With shadow dom, web components would have their own little bits of CSS, which provides sufficient amount of encapsulation that neither CSS modules nor SCSS are really necessary.

I don't have any problems with importing CSS from (S)CSS files or writing it inside of a LitElement-based web component. I don't have any problem with writing CSS by hand either. I find it strange that people would want to learn another domain-specific language for CSS, in addition to the CSS itself and DOM's camel-cased style dialect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com