[williamdclt]

That's exactly what the article is talking about. "Let the parent lay its children out" means "use layout components in the parent". This is what this `Stack` component is: probably a flex container. They use the term "spacer component" but "layout component" would be more accurate and wouldn't trigger all these knee-jerk reactions

[city41]

My argument is that component isn't needed. The article is basically proposing Parent -> Stack -> Children. I argue the parent should own both its parent roles and the layout roles. The Stack component adds an unnecessary layer IMO. It will probably add an unnecessary DOM node too which is unfortunate. My experience with layout-like components such as this Stack is they often have limitations people work around in bad ways, or sometimes they just end up having props like `columnGap` and basically just end up being a little re-implementation of inline styles. I have pretty much always found just having the parent do layout using standard CSS to be better.

[williamdclt]

It's a more subtle argument, but a lot of people (me included) think that `<Stack>...</Stack>` is better than `<div class="stack">...</div>`. More readable, more reusable, that's the sort of thing Flutter went with (not a Flutter user personally).

There's no reason it would add unnecessary DOM nodes. You can add styling on top of any component if needed (styled-components is one way but not the only one). Having a `columnGap="small"` is perfectly acceptable for me (`columnGap={3}` too if 3 refers to some scaling, `columnGap="10px"` is bad).

It's similar to the Tailwind approach: have ready-made pieces of UI you can compose. But I also get why you wouldn't like it, and I think any of these approaches work fine enough if you they're used diligently