I tried to avoid mentioning that, but Tailwind is showcasing how to write CSS using composition from inheritance. But it can't overcome the knee-jerk reaction from many CSS developers that don't see the problems that comes with CSS cascade/inheritance. I think this is mostly because leaning on cascading rules is seen as a best practice and most aren't going to question best practices much.
I'll never understand why a lot of CSS devs are opposed to it. I can understand the initial gut reaction, but I've been writing CSS for 14 years and I love Tailwind.
The cascade is a wonderful idea that has unfortunately not played out well in practice. Anyone who thinks it's just a skill issue is deluding themselves. In all my years, I've never seen CSS that (a) leverages the cascade, and (b) scales elegantly. It all breaks down past a certain point.
Tailwind has it's flaws, but it doesn't have the scaling problem.
Mainly because nobody is a "CSS Dev". If someone's entire job was developing CSS, you might expect that they would be willing to learn one new slightly different way of doing it. But in reality the pushback comes from full stack developers who already have a million other things to worry about, such that relearning all the basic CSS they already know, to achieve benefits that are rather minuscule in the grand scheme of things, is a low priority. I personally am working on a Tailwind product that is fairly small (~10k lines, perhaps), and the Tailwind isn't an annoyance per-say, but it's definitely less ergonomically friendly than the well-engineered enterprise application I was working on before, which was 100x the size and used exclusively pure CSS.
Personally, my dream would be if inline styles supported the full CSS gamut of pseudo selectors and the child element selector. Then you'd have the admitted benefits of not needing to synchronize the two files, along with the benefit of not needing to relearn all of CSS.
On the contrary, Tailwind's ergonomics are what attract me to it. With the autocomplete features via the VSCode intellisense plugin, I'm able to create UIs at a pretty extraordinary pace.
As a trivial example, let's imagine we need to apply a border radius to an element. Without Tailwind, it looks like this:
1. I find the element I need to style
2. I look at which class it's using
3. I navigate to my CSS file
4. I scroll down until I find the selector
5. I type "border-r", then tab on the auto-complete to fill in "border-radius"
6. I type the colon character, then space
7. I think about what unit is appropriate - rems, ems, pixels, percentage
8. I think about what value is needed for the design
9. I also look around to see if this style is used elsewhere
10. If the style is used elsewhere, I think about whether I need to refactor
11. I type in the desired value
12. I type a semicolon to mark the end of the statement
13. I type cmd+s to save the css file
Here's the same example, with Tailwind:
1. I find the element I need to style
2. I type `round` and wait for the autocomplete to present my options
3. I use my arrow key to select which one I want
4. I type enter to add the desired tailwind class
5. I type cmd+s to save the html file
The Tailwind interaction path takes less than half of the concrete steps to complete. But it's even more dramatic than that, because several of the steps taken in the first example require enough thought that it breaks your workflow and takes you out of your flow state. Then you have to get back into that flow state to keep working. But this keeps happening, so you're constantly stopping and restarting. With Tailwind, I tend to find myself staying in that flow state, because as I demonstrated above, there's very little getting in my way.
Fully agree with this. The regular arguments against Tailwind like "it's just inline styles", "learn CSS properly", "it looks ugly" and "normal CSS is easy" say nothing about how fast the Tailwind approach lets you make edits and stay focused in comparison.
Normal CSS is usually worse than this too e.g. you hit save, and your edit doesn't change anything, so you have to use the web inspector to hunt down which class is overriding your style then weigh up options for how you're going to refactor while jumping between multiple files. It's exhausting when you're trying to focus on styling.
I also assumed that a class already existed for it. Because otherwise you have to think about whether you use a class or an id or an element selector, you have to think about what the class name is going to be, which file it should go into, etc etc. What I presented was absolute best case scenario lol.
I actually just downloaded the VS Code extension earlier today as a result of this discussion, perhaps that will change my opinion. Because for me the two flows would be:
1. I find the element I need to style
2. I add/edit the inline style={{}} attribute I have for it by typing `sty<TAB>{borrad<TAB>`
3. I add a value
VS:
1. I find the element I need to style
2. I add/edit the className attribute
3. I pull up the tailwind documentation to find how to type the CSS I already have memorized in their DSL (I know some Tailwind by heart, but wayyyyy more CSS)
4. I wait for it to load
5. I scroll down to find the version of the class name that I need
6. I go back to the editor and add the class.
Also a very common flow for me is to edit the CSS directly in the browser, it's a much faster devloop than the fastest live reload server. In that case it's far easier to just copy from the `changes` view into the CSS than go through and remap everything from CSS into Tailwind.
That's fair - styling directly in the browser does indeed cut down several of the steps I mentioned, or at least it condenses it to one step at the end. I do think that installing the extension changes the experience entirely, because then you don't need to reference the docs.
You can also edit CSS in the browser and have it automatically sync to your source code without having to do any manual copying, look up "CSS mirror editing"
A CSP can be configured to disallow external stylesheets too. I don't see how that's particularly relevant. But obviously if for some reason a CSP was configured as such, and I had no power to change it, I'd work around it.
