First of all - this comparison isn't a very good argument for your point. It shows, that uncompressed html with utility-first is just trash. Gzip is worse and only with brotli it is minimal better (0.8 kb).
You also mentioned, that utility first is soooo easy, but it only perform well, if you add extra steps to it, so you weaking your own point.
Second: This comparision isn't fair at all. She compares an "old" version of a side, which grews over time with a completle new created, optimzied version. Its like you would say - hey, my new Honda is much better then my 30 years old BMW.
To be fair, a lot of the arguments in the video are true or some kind of true. But she basically only picks aspects, where utility-first aproach is performing well. The aspects which dont fit well for her point are ignored or she just says "its ugly, but live with it". She also compares more or less "hardcore" sematic vs "utility first" mixed with semantic ("create button classes") and promote it as a feature of utility first only.
I totally understand, that the new kid in the block has to show his muscles, but this "I am the new super hero for all cases and everything what we have done till now is wrong," behavior is just stupid.
He had a lot better objections to the idea of TailwindCSS than "I don't like it". You're not really refuting any of his objections. So to me it seems you're putting forth the inverse of what Evan said. It comes across as: "I like it. Look, it's popular. You just don't understand it". It's not very convincing for us readers trying to evaluate TailwindCSS on balanced terms. I was hoping for better arguments and refutations in favour of TailwindCSS here, really.
First of all - this comparison isn't a very good argument for your point. It shows, that uncompressed html with utility-first is just trash. Gzip is worse and only with brotli it is minimal better (0.8 kb).
You also mentioned, that utility first is soooo easy, but it only perform well, if you add extra steps to it, so you weaking your own point.
Second: This comparision isn't fair at all. She compares an "old" version of a side, which grews over time with a completle new created, optimzied version. Its like you would say - hey, my new Honda is much better then my 30 years old BMW.
To be fair, a lot of the arguments in the video are true or some kind of true. But she basically only picks aspects, where utility-first aproach is performing well. The aspects which dont fit well for her point are ignored or she just says "its ugly, but live with it". She also compares more or less "hardcore" sematic vs "utility first" mixed with semantic ("create button classes") and promote it as a feature of utility first only.
I totally understand, that the new kid in the block has to show his muscles, but this "I am the new super hero for all cases and everything what we have done till now is wrong," behavior is just stupid.
Let's just see if it's better than the existing CSS frameworks. Time will tell.
twitter.com/GuamHat/status/1316845...
He had a lot better objections to the idea of TailwindCSS than "I don't like it". You're not really refuting any of his objections. So to me it seems you're putting forth the inverse of what Evan said. It comes across as: "I like it. Look, it's popular. You just don't understand it". It's not very convincing for us readers trying to evaluate TailwindCSS on balanced terms. I was hoping for better arguments and refutations in favour of TailwindCSS here, really.
Time will tell. :)
State of CSS 2020 review: dev.to/lukekyl/2020-state-of-css-i...
