> Actually it's more like toolkit to make your own set of utility classes.

You mean like CSS? Why recreate raw CSS as classes and use that in your CSS? I'm sorry but all I'm seeing is a huge disconnect.

It systematically abstracts CSS to an atomic subset.

You either take the default configuration with a few tweaks, for example if you are a programmer first.

Or you define a more complete, unique system upfront, for example if you implement a bespoke interface from a UI designer.

If you see emerging patterns that ask for composition, then you can easily compose utilities and give your components semantic class names.

It is a blessing for productivity, performance and maintainability, because it decouples CSS concretions by introducing a light, composable abstraction layer between raw CSS and component/semantic CSS.

Think of it as a lightweight, well defined query builder on top of SQL that you use for safe parameter binding and composability. (The analogy leaks a bit but you get the drift)

Yes, like CSS, but it’s effectively a much smaller subset of CSS. Instead of the entire CSS specification being on the table though, it’s a drastically smaller set of “utility” classes (or properties, to follow the “but it’s css” logic)

It’s CSS with a design system. If you need to bump a value like margin or font size by one click you know you’re doing that within the context of a harmonious scale, not just writing free-form css, reinventing a design system (if you even have one) from scratch on every site.