On: Bulma CSS Framework

[pier25]

How is this a good thing?

You now need the extra JS from that <Button> component to encapsulate the HTML with TW classes.

Plus all the overhead from TW itself. You need a ton of classes to essentially replicate inline styles.

Plus all the CPU needed to parse and execute all that extra JS and CSS code.

I get that some people prefer this workflow and that's fine, everyone has preferences. But arguing this is better than sending an HTML tag with a couple of classes is absurd.

[csomar → pier25]

> You need a ton of classes to essentially replicate inline styles.

This works better for optimization because you reuse classes. End developer doesn't care. Designers use Storybook to keep track of the components.

> But arguing this is better than sending an HTML tag with a couple of classes is absurd.

If you compile/SSR your React, the end user will get an HTML tag with classes.

[pier25 → csomar]

With Bulma/Bootstrap you're also reusing classes but you just need a fracion of those compared to TW. I don't know the ratio but I would imagine it's something like 1:10.

And when using TW with SSR you're still sending all those extra classes per element.

[xigoi → csomar]

> If you compile/SSR your React, the end user will get an HTML tag with classes.

Isn’t that just semantic HTML with extra steps?

[wruza → csomar]

Is this specific to react?