[spankalee]

CSS simply doesn't need a framework - there's no "from scratch". For humans or LLM authors.

Tailwind is a lot of overhead conceptually and tooling wise to just not have to write classnames, and it's actually anti-modular.

[AltruisticGapHN]

That's not the full picture.

If you're a senior CSS developer you will invariably reach a point of using "object oriented CSS" which is where you combine classes to an effect.

At that point you're not far off Tailwind. TW just took it all the way.

[vehemenz]

Can you explain? Tailwind massively reduces overhead for abstraction, classing, documentation, and maintenance.

[wrs]

AFAICT, Tailwind is largely (not entirely) a different, shorter syntax for writing inline styles. (E.g., "class: 'bg-white'" = "style: 'background-color: white'".)

If you've rejected structural CSS to begin with, I sort of get the point that it saves a lot of typing; otherwise I don't see how it helps all that much over SASS or just modern plain CSS.

[rvnx]

Tailwind is a dirty hack, normally you are supposed to declare a class, which you apply to items of the same concept. This is the cause for CSS to exist.

Front devs got lazy, and started writing for each element, position: absolute; left:3px, top:6px, color:red;...

You could write <font color="red">Hello</font> this would be similar "cleanliness"

[cluckindan]

Can’t wait for Headwind CSS implemented as custom elements.