426
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Pro@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SomeRandomNoob@discuss.tchncs.de 51 points 1 week ago

Tailwind is like going back to in-line styles. If you add font tags you are back in the 2000’s

[-] brian@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago

except we generally use higher level abstractions now, like component based frameworks. If you're writing raw html with tailwind and no library you're doing it wrong and css is a better fit.

well written straight css ends up building it's own tree of components. if you're using react too you're either only selecting a single component (inline styles but have to open two files) or writing good css (duplicating the component hierarchy in css).

tailwind is just the former but better since it encourages using a projectwide set of specific sizes/colors/breakpoints and small scope, the two actual problems with inline styles after organization and resuse, which react etc solves.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

I cannot tell if you're saying tailwind is taking away from useful abstractions or adding to them. I think it's taking away from them. A whole bunch of class names in the page is opposite to what we were taught and there was a good reason for the lesson: content and presentation should be defined separately. This lends flexibility, readability and accessibility. Tailwind doesn't help with anything but preventing a breakage in another component/page. To me the reason to value this trade off is that you don't want devs to "have to care about css" which is a bad sign to begin with. It says "we think the way the web is built is bullshit, so let's just try to work around that with the latest attempt to make it better". The web is not bullshit. CSS is beautiful. Embrace the challenge. (Sorry I'm only halfway directing this rant at you)

[-] Eyron@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

You're not wrong.

Realistically, there's a bit of a nuance. Many modern web apps have different components that aren't HTML. You don't need HTML for a component. And those non-HTML components can provide the consistency they need. Sometimes, that's consistency for how to get the data. Sometimes, that's consistency for how to display the data. For displaying, each component basically has its own CSS, but it doesn't need to. A CSS class isn't required.

Tailwind isn't meant to be a component system, It's meant to supplement one. If you're writing CSS's components, it looks horrible. If you're writing components at CSS that needs a foundation of best practices, it works pretty decent. They're still consistency. They're still components. They're just not centered around HTML/CSS anymore. It doesn't have to be.

Sematically, it is still worse HTML. Realistically, it's often faster to iterate on, easier to avoid breakage: especially as the project becomes larger. Combine that with the code being more easily copied and pasted. It can be a tough combo to beat. It's probably just a stepping stone to whatever's next.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Many modern web apps have different components that aren’t HTML

What do you mean by this? Web Components?

I am not sure I understand the second paragraph either. I get that if you're doing things well, TW class names can be applied in a non-insane way. Still rubs me the wrong way as a concept though.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
426 points (97.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

24790 readers
237 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS