Comment on: I don't recommend Tailwind CSS
have that wrapped in a component named ErrorText and it makes perfectly sense. Why would you need a component ErrorText which restates its own name in the classname again when that classname is only ever used in that exact component. If anything you only need it because your atomic styles sit in another file and you somehow need to reference them. If you have both in the same file with a name ErrorText there is nothing more to give any semantic meaning.Semantic class names make no sense in a component context and that's why tailwind feels like a liberation in the context of component-based web
Comment on: CSS's problems are Tailwind's problems
This is a novel take that I think genuinely adds something to tired tailwind discourse:> I think the most important factor in Tailwind's success is that it does one thing very correctly: it demands the developer who installs it set up a config file that lays out all codebase-wide style constants: colors, margin sizes, fonts, border radii, etc. Writing individual styles that do not use a pre-configured constant from the config file is clunky in Tailwind. This is a good thing, an unironic win for Tailwind. More than anything else, this is what a large codebase with multiple frontend devs needs:
Comment on: I don't recommend Tailwind CSS
It isn't shocking and that wasn't my point. The OP is pointing to benefits of tailwind related to onboaring new devs, I was just raising that doesn't match my experience.If a new dev doesn't know CSS well it won't help them. If a new dev does know CSS but doesn't know Tailwind, it still won't help.The standardization can be claimed as a benefit, though it really amounts to avoiding having to architect how CSS is managed in a project and at the end of the day the solution is to just inline styles one a time (I.e. no cascade or stylesheets).Though a bit unrelated, I take issue with the core prom