Re:Inline Scope for CSS
by emmanueloga_ on Monday October 14, 2024 @03:04AM
(#41834968)
> I really wouldn’t say Tailwind does anything that resembles living and breathing CSS.
@scope itself doesn't resemble traditional CSS. In fact, @scope is not even generally available, since FF doesn't implement it yet.
> Their entire value proposition is making shit copy and pastable by ignoring the “C” in CSS
The scoping problem in CSS is well-known, and one could argue that the "C" in CSS can often be one of its biggest flaws. Cascading is complex and hard to use. I like how @scope addresses this issue!
If you have the problem that @scope solves (and you'll have it if you write non-trivial webapp), and you want something that will work today across browsers, an alternative solution you should try is Tailwind.
> and then doing further things to kind of reduce how much you need to know about writing CSS
I've been thinking of TW as an "APL for CSS": it is this cool shorthand system where a bunch of little utility classes can generate a lot of CSS properties for you. But you still 100% need to understand what your shorthand is doing.
> Don’t get me wrong, I see the appeal of it, but the implementation I think leaves a lot to be desired.
No tool is perfect, but in my experience, Tailwind has made building complex web apps a lot more enjoyable.
> I know a lot of people like it but it’s considered a very flawed solution in a lot of ways by people who have a decent working knowledge of CSS to begin with.
I wasn’t swayed by the popularity of Tailwind or the opinions of CSS experts. I decided to form my own opinion, and I'm glad I did! (I was skeptical too for a long time).
I’m typically a late adopter—I prefer to wait until the rough edges of a tool have been smoothed out, but/and I've been using TW 4.0 (in alpha) for about three months, and even with a long career of writing CSS in more traditional way, and also things like Sass, CSS-in-JS, etc, etc, my current assessment is that TW is a more enjoyable way to write web apps.
--
Locality of behavior is the main thing that makes it so enjoyable for me. Things like shadow DOM and @scope are steps in that direction. Maybe someday newer web standards will make TW obsolete, but for now, it is my preferred way to style web apps.
@scope itself doesn't resemble traditional CSS. In fact, @scope is not even generally available, since FF doesn't implement it yet.
> Their entire value proposition is making shit copy and pastable by ignoring the “C” in CSS
The scoping problem in CSS is well-known, and one could argue that the "C" in CSS can often be one of its biggest flaws. Cascading is complex and hard to use. I like how @scope addresses this issue!
If you have the problem that @scope solves (and you'll have it if you write non-trivial webapp), and you want something that will work today across browsers, an alternative solution you should try is Tailwind.
> and then doing further things to kind of reduce how much you need to know about writing CSS
I've been thinking of TW as an "APL for CSS": it is this cool shorthand system where a bunch of little utility classes can generate a lot of CSS properties for you. But you still 100% need to understand what your shorthand is doing.
> Don’t get me wrong, I see the appeal of it, but the implementation I think leaves a lot to be desired.
No tool is perfect, but in my experience, Tailwind has made building complex web apps a lot more enjoyable.
> I know a lot of people like it but it’s considered a very flawed solution in a lot of ways by people who have a decent working knowledge of CSS to begin with.
I wasn’t swayed by the popularity of Tailwind or the opinions of CSS experts. I decided to form my own opinion, and I'm glad I did! (I was skeptical too for a long time).
I’m typically a late adopter—I prefer to wait until the rough edges of a tool have been smoothed out, but/and I've been using TW 4.0 (in alpha) for about three months, and even with a long career of writing CSS in more traditional way, and also things like Sass, CSS-in-JS, etc, etc, my current assessment is that TW is a more enjoyable way to write web apps.
--
Locality of behavior is the main thing that makes it so enjoyable for me. Things like shadow DOM and @scope are steps in that direction. Maybe someday newer web standards will make TW obsolete, but for now, it is my preferred way to style web apps.