Hacker News Reader

Comment by pier25 | Hacker News Reader

> There is also nothing stopping you mixing and matching.

Yes, common sense. Having multiple approaches to solve the same thing tends to be a bad idea.

My point is that there is no one CSS library to rule them all and likely never will be. The closest to that is going back to pure raw CSS which I highly doubt people will do.

And yes while it's obviously not ideal to have a hundred competing libraries in your code, you can create what works for you / your team.

> The closest to that is going back to pure raw CSS which I highly doubt people will do.

Huh? Tons of people write vanilla CSS which is getting better every year.

Very very few people, in practice, write vanilla CSS. They use libraries and frameworks often, like Bootstrap. Sure, that might be "vanilla CSS", but you didn't write it, presumably because you didn't want to.

Look, after a certain point we have to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that CSS is just too cumbersome, too awkward, and too complicated for most developers and companies. How much CSS do you see that seems to be read-only? People just... tack on to the end of the style sheet, right?

The promise of re-usability is great, but is it actually happening? IME, no.

> Very very few people, in practice, write vanilla CSS.

That's not what I've seen. Most frontend developers I know usually write CSS (or SCSS previously).

> CSS is just too cumbersome, too awkward, and too complicated for most developers and companies.

Really?

I disagree but are you arguing TW solves any of that?

This is an extremely limiting view. They are both CSS at the end of the day. If extracting the complicated inline TailwindCSS class to its own vanilla CSS class makes sense for readability then what's the harm? You could also just define your own variables. Tailwind gives you full control to do this.

The harm will be in a complicated project where you might have to figure out where some styles are coming from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com