I think they meant "For bootstrap.."?
What it has is an excess of features, that may be hard to recall. But large language models are surprisingly good at bridging this gap when you need a hand in writing a snippet for a given layout.
I suspect people waste more time learning Tailwind than they would write plain CSS. And by "plain CSS" I do not exclude tools like SCSS/SASS/LESS, whose utility is confirmed by the fact CSS itself is adopting some of their features and syntax (variables, nesting).
Imagine CSS adopting some of Tailwind's syntax, though... Wow. Sorry for the disturbing mental image.
But asking me to take Tailwind seriously as a CSS framework is like asking me to take Flat Earth Society seriously in a science forum. Everything has a threshold where you cross from the plausible to the absurd. To me there's a non-zero chance Tailwind is (or at least started as) a parody of bad software design.
We just had a submission the other day that "the JavaScript ecosystem has a talent problem". It's a real problem.
CSS's very goal is to separate styles into reusable, readable rules, and here comes Tailwind, inlining them into an endless combination of increasingly obscure and indecipherable abbreviations. Are you not entertained? It seems deliberate.