[DrBazza]

Not liking React, and Tailwind, is a bit like saying 'I don't like Netty/Sprint Boot, I'll write my own web server'.

css (and javascript/webasm) are the lowest levels in web development, of course people are going to build on top of them.

Building a design system on top of css is not a surprising outcome. It's not different to building a library on top of a language.

The only problem I have with tailwind is that it reminds me of the days of 'save this Word document as HTML' and the horror that was MS markup in HTML.

Having said that, I use it, I like it, and it allows me to just do things and move on. If I don't know something, the design is discoverable with a bit of thought, unlike the underlying css.

[mgkimsal]

How is saying "I don't like tailwind" leading to "I'll write my own webserver"? If tailwind was, magically, the only alternative to hand-rolling everything, perhaps, maybe, but it's not.

[DrBazza]

My analogy, which seems to be a poor one judging by the downvotes, is that css is lowest level you can get for layout in browser, so it's inevitable that someone will write something of a higher abstraction to simplify it's usage (discoverable with limited class names), give it a particular purpose (consistent scales), and make it reusable. This is exactly what a library (webserver) is written on top of a language of your choice (java).

It's not unreasonable to expect someone to take a similar approach to tailwind and write a similar thing that targets something even more specific such as animations.

[mgkimsal]

The downvotes probably came from your 'all or nothing'. There are, and have been, multiple abstractions at various levels, for years. Implying that if someone doesn't like these particular abstractions, they advocate "build it yourself" is wrong, and that's how it came off.