1 Boost
0 Likes
@loucyx if the output is ugly, I don’t want it.
I can throw together a simple and beautiful one-pager by hand with semantic HTML and a few lines of CSS; it is not exceptionally difficult, and it is worthwhile having someone who understands the craft of web design to craft the design of your web page. It should not be *harder* to build a web page using a framework than by hand.
I’m sure tailwind and similar have a place, it’s just not for me or the kind of web design I ever want to do.
@cassidy I get it. It's very useful when working in big web projects with lots of hands on deck because conflict resolution and specificity is way easier to handle.
For my small projects I also just use vanilla CSS, so please don't get me as a "Tailwind Evangelist" or anything like that, I just wanted to point out there's a reason atomic CSS is so popular.
We can both agree it's better than CSS-in-JS, tho :P
@cassidy data-barf=copious
@cassidy I've never used tailwind, but wow... What a mess! My eyes!
@cassidy Same!
I'd rather use the `style` attribute rather than inscrutable abbreviations mapping to the same CSS properties!
@cassidy the whole idea with using tailwind is using a component framework or library with it to encapsulate those long class names. Code like the one you share should only be the “output” of it all. It looks messy, but it’s a way of achieving a FP-like composition in CSS, and you can completely forget about !important, fighting specificity and so on. Customizing components is also a breeze using libs like tailwind-merge. You can also use `@apply`.
But yeah, the output can look ugly.