There is a natural tendency to try reinvent something when you don’t understand it enough to be comfortable with it. Then that new thing lacks the maturity and scrutiny that the old thing went through to survive the test of time.
While this is something that does happen, there’s also a tendency for people in the industry to dismiss new things without actually looking into the pros and cons.
Doesn’t it give you pause that many very experienced Frontend & CSS developers see objective advantages in Tailwinds utility class approach? Of course there are also objective disadvantages, don’t get me wrong. But that means that these tools should be used whenever their advantages can shine and their disadvantages don’t cause issues.
Any developer that can’t clearly name the issues with regular CSS that Tailwind attempts to solve either hasn’t been developing long enough to encounter these issues, or hasn’t actually tried to understand what Tailwind is.
Doesn’t it give you pause that many very experienced Frontend & CSS developers see objective advantages in Tailwinds utility class approach?
That is not a good enough reason to justify its existence. You can very well say that fossil fuel companies should continue to exist because look at how long it’s been around with all the expertise people have. Surely they should stay around, right?
IMO, the industry decided to take the wrong direction, which I would agree makes sense from an economics perspective, but man, all I see is short term gains over long term ones, where we would’ve been able to build better solutions than hacks upon hacks (not using that fully derogatorily tbh). We could’ve spent all that energy, money, and time to bettering CSS and improving education to help people understand the cascade and specificity, while building better, more computationally efficient solutions that would minimize our bundles better and make JS a lot tamer than it is.
That is not a good enough reason to justify its existence.
There is no better reason to justify the existence of any technology than it having objective advantages, even if there are drawbacks as well!
You can very well say that fossil fuel companies should continue to exist because look at how long it’s been around with all the expertise people have. Surely they should stay around, right?
You’re pretending that I’m making a completely different argument. Don’t do that. I never mentioned “how long it’s been around with all the expertise people have”. There are literal objective advantages. Why are you pretending they don’t exist?
Please also see my other comment
So people should choose a model that decreases development speed & increases complexity as well as the potential for bugs/side effects, just because “it’s the right way to go”. People have been trying to embrace the cascade for a long, long, long time, and it keeps causing issues in larger applications that simply don’t happen with non-cascading approaches.
Why do you pretend like these aren’t real advantages?
I don’t know why you think I haven’t mentioned it’s advantages at all or is trying to paint me as not wanting to acknowledge “plainly obvious advantages”. I literally said that Tailwind is the industry’s current answer to working with CSS in a way that seems to work with the current and modern economic pressures. I have literally mentioned in my other comment that its advantage is that it’s as an easier to learn, easier to collab tool. Idk what else I’m supposed to say.
You were asked to say the benefits of Tailwind, but instead of saying what the clear benefits are, you are the one who chose to answer by saying that “many industry experts use it”. I thought it was a ridiculous reply, and so I chose to be ridiculous to draw parallels of your logic to justifying for the existence of fossil fuel companies. If you do not understand the concept of similies and hyperbole, I’m sorry I can’t help you there.
And you seem to fail to see the bigger picture of things and simply treated my other comment as a “I claim that this is the right way to go”. I do not claim that it is one, and is merely lamenting on the fact that there was, and emphasis here to help you read, what I think was a better way. If you’re going by the metric that economies are efficient if only things can be made quickly, then my comment is pointing out that you are simply trapped by dogma, and is merely being a part to toxic capitalism where it’s a rat race to the bottom of the barrel.
If you think CSS with the C is “slowing down development and is increasing complexity as well as potential for bugs and side effects”, then you are part of the problem. And no, I do not agree that people have “tried to embrace the cascade for a long, long, long time”. What I see instead is that they have simply lived with it because we haven’t gotten to a point where we write SS without the C. Seriously, I still don’t understand that if virtually an entire industry just hates the cascade so much, why haven’t y’all just removed it?
I’m not sure if my message is getting across to you, because it seems like you are very much happy with the state of things and the direction it’s going at. And you don’t have to spend your energy talking to someone who’s clearly on the minority and losing side of the industry. I’m just some person who happens to like CSS with the C, and enjoy writing CSS so much as it allows me to so concisely describe what I want across an entire application, and is simply lamenting on the fact that we haven’t did much to improve literacy of CSS, thinking that better CSS literacy translates to better engineers. So save your breath and energy pal.
While this is something that does happen, there’s also a tendency for people in the industry to dismiss new things without actually looking into the pros and cons.
Doesn’t it give you pause that many very experienced Frontend & CSS developers see objective advantages in Tailwinds utility class approach? Of course there are also objective disadvantages, don’t get me wrong. But that means that these tools should be used whenever their advantages can shine and their disadvantages don’t cause issues.
Any developer that can’t clearly name the issues with regular CSS that Tailwind attempts to solve either hasn’t been developing long enough to encounter these issues, or hasn’t actually tried to understand what Tailwind is.
That is not a good enough reason to justify its existence. You can very well say that fossil fuel companies should continue to exist because look at how long it’s been around with all the expertise people have. Surely they should stay around, right?
Please also see my other comment
https://vger.to/lemmy.ca/comment/20657420
IMO, the industry decided to take the wrong direction, which I would agree makes sense from an economics perspective, but man, all I see is short term gains over long term ones, where we would’ve been able to build better solutions than hacks upon hacks (not using that fully derogatorily tbh). We could’ve spent all that energy, money, and time to bettering CSS and improving education to help people understand the cascade and specificity, while building better, more computationally efficient solutions that would minimize our bundles better and make JS a lot tamer than it is.
But I’m blabbering.
There is no better reason to justify the existence of any technology than it having objective advantages, even if there are drawbacks as well!
You’re pretending that I’m making a completely different argument. Don’t do that. I never mentioned “how long it’s been around with all the expertise people have”. There are literal objective advantages. Why are you pretending they don’t exist?
So people should choose a model that decreases development speed & increases complexity as well as the potential for bugs/side effects, just because “it’s the right way to go”. People have been trying to embrace the cascade for a long, long, long time, and it keeps causing issues in larger applications that simply don’t happen with non-cascading approaches.
Why do you pretend like these aren’t real advantages?
I don’t know why you think I haven’t mentioned it’s advantages at all or is trying to paint me as not wanting to acknowledge “plainly obvious advantages”. I literally said that Tailwind is the industry’s current answer to working with CSS in a way that seems to work with the current and modern economic pressures. I have literally mentioned in my other comment that its advantage is that it’s as an easier to learn, easier to collab tool. Idk what else I’m supposed to say.
You were asked to say the benefits of Tailwind, but instead of saying what the clear benefits are, you are the one who chose to answer by saying that “many industry experts use it”. I thought it was a ridiculous reply, and so I chose to be ridiculous to draw parallels of your logic to justifying for the existence of fossil fuel companies. If you do not understand the concept of similies and hyperbole, I’m sorry I can’t help you there.
And you seem to fail to see the bigger picture of things and simply treated my other comment as a “I claim that this is the right way to go”. I do not claim that it is one, and is merely lamenting on the fact that there was, and emphasis here to help you read, what I think was a better way. If you’re going by the metric that economies are efficient if only things can be made quickly, then my comment is pointing out that you are simply trapped by dogma, and is merely being a part to toxic capitalism where it’s a rat race to the bottom of the barrel.
If you think CSS with the C is “slowing down development and is increasing complexity as well as potential for bugs and side effects”, then you are part of the problem. And no, I do not agree that people have “tried to embrace the cascade for a long, long, long time”. What I see instead is that they have simply lived with it because we haven’t gotten to a point where we write SS without the C. Seriously, I still don’t understand that if virtually an entire industry just hates the cascade so much, why haven’t y’all just removed it?
I’m not sure if my message is getting across to you, because it seems like you are very much happy with the state of things and the direction it’s going at. And you don’t have to spend your energy talking to someone who’s clearly on the minority and losing side of the industry. I’m just some person who happens to like CSS with the C, and enjoy writing CSS so much as it allows me to so concisely describe what I want across an entire application, and is simply lamenting on the fact that we haven’t did much to improve literacy of CSS, thinking that better CSS literacy translates to better engineers. So save your breath and energy pal.
utility classes are just a small step away from style attributes
See, that’s a great example of a critique that nobody with professional experience would make.