No doubt tailwind is powerful in its own way, but I'm a little confused as to what the point of this example is. Your end result looks practically identical to the Bootstrap equivalent, but requires extra work and a compilation step to get there. If one wanted the "so much cleaner" semantic CSS classes that you end up with in this example, why wouldn't they just use Bootstrap instead and cut out a few steps?
I'm a software engineer who likes to write articles, road or mountain bike, test gravity, and write code!
I write engineering or opinion articles to help educate others.
Location
Dallas, TX
Education
Software Engineering @ Western Governors University
You can use Bootstrap in anything you like. But with Bootstrap you need to dig through the file and update many locations to make small changes in its source. In terms of rapid prototyping this can be counter productive. This being said I do believe there are tools which aim to make this a little simpler. Such as this. But for the most part you still have to dig in and make many changes to components to style them to your requirements. The point of this article was to help people know about the extra compile step which enables developers who prefer semantic classes to also enjoy the framework. There are many objections to utility frameworks due to the ugliness they leave behind within the project files. And I was aiming to shed a little light on this feature.
Interesting perspective. Maybe I just have a different workflow. I've been using Bootstrap off and on since it was called Twitter Bootstrap, and I've never once needed to dig through the Bootstrap source and make changes. As a matter of fact, that sounds counter-productive, as updating Bootstrap when new versions are released would simply overwrite your updates. So I don't quite understand the scenario you're describing. All I see with Tailwind is extra work to get where I want to get to.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
No doubt tailwind is powerful in its own way, but I'm a little confused as to what the point of this example is. Your end result looks practically identical to the Bootstrap equivalent, but requires extra work and a compilation step to get there. If one wanted the "so much cleaner" semantic CSS classes that you end up with in this example, why wouldn't they just use Bootstrap instead and cut out a few steps?
You can use Bootstrap in anything you like. But with Bootstrap you need to dig through the file and update many locations to make small changes in its source. In terms of rapid prototyping this can be counter productive. This being said I do believe there are tools which aim to make this a little simpler. Such as this. But for the most part you still have to dig in and make many changes to components to style them to your requirements. The point of this article was to help people know about the extra compile step which enables developers who prefer semantic classes to also enjoy the framework. There are many objections to utility frameworks due to the ugliness they leave behind within the project files. And I was aiming to shed a little light on this feature.
Interesting perspective. Maybe I just have a different workflow. I've been using Bootstrap off and on since it was called Twitter Bootstrap, and I've never once needed to dig through the Bootstrap source and make changes. As a matter of fact, that sounds counter-productive, as updating Bootstrap when new versions are released would simply overwrite your updates. So I don't quite understand the scenario you're describing. All I see with Tailwind is extra work to get where I want to get to.