this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
401 points (97.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

24834 readers
334 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SomeRandomNoob@discuss.tchncs.de 48 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tailwind is like going back to in-line styles. If you add font tags you are back in the 2000’s

[–] brian@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

except we generally use higher level abstractions now, like component based frameworks. If you're writing raw html with tailwind and no library you're doing it wrong and css is a better fit.

well written straight css ends up building it's own tree of components. if you're using react too you're either only selecting a single component (inline styles but have to open two files) or writing good css (duplicating the component hierarchy in css).

tailwind is just the former but better since it encourages using a projectwide set of specific sizes/colors/breakpoints and small scope, the two actual problems with inline styles after organization and resuse, which react etc solves.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I cannot tell if you're saying tailwind is taking away from useful abstractions or adding to them. I think it's taking away from them. A whole bunch of class names in the page is opposite to what we were taught and there was a good reason for the lesson: content and presentation should be defined separately. This lends flexibility, readability and accessibility. Tailwind doesn't help with anything but preventing a breakage in another component/page. To me the reason to value this trade off is that you don't want devs to "have to care about css" which is a bad sign to begin with. It says "we think the way the web is built is bullshit, so let's just try to work around that with the latest attempt to make it better". The web is not bullshit. CSS is beautiful. Embrace the challenge. (Sorry I'm only halfway directing this rant at you)

[–] brian@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm saying we weren't taught when react was the way people wrote sites. if I was writing a site with pure html, css is great, especially modern css.

but if I'm already using react and their abstractions, opinions on that part aside, I'd personally rather lean on the react component as the unit of reuse. tailwind removes the abstraction that you don't need, since many people in react tend towards one scoped css file per component with classes for each element anyway

at this point I'd be more inclined to say for many sites the api and data fetching things are the content and html+css is presentation. csszengarden is cool but I haven't seen the html/css split help an end user, or really even me as a developer.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

tailwind removes the abstraction that you don’t need, since many people in react tend towards one scoped css file per component with classes for each element anyway

What abstraction does it remove? In my view, it just adds slightly different abstractions. Instead of knowing an element has a clean block of rules with set meanings, you get a long (potentially grossly formatted/ordered) string of class names that mean the same thing as the CSS properties for the most part, but you've gotta learn a new set of aliases for them. If I am working on someone else's component, one of these scenarios is way easier for me than the other. Even when I worked with TW for a while, I never could really remember a lot of those class names.

csszengarden is cool but I haven’t seen the html/css split help an end user, or really even me as a developer.

You may have never refactored or reskinned a site. I have several times. The hardest projects like that were when content and presentation were tightly coupled. Those felt like pulling teeth to get done. important! every time a dev buried a style tag somewhere deep in some (for all intents and purposes) unchangeable Java code... shudder When they were loosely coupled, it was fun and went much easier.

edit: respect for knowing csszengarden. That site honestly was the first time I learned this principal and saw it applied. I've themed several websites over the years so I've used the concept myself.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RushLana@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Genuine question : what's wrong with modern vanilla CSS3 ?

Maybe it's because I've used css2 I don't see the point of css frameworks.

[–] kambusha@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I was very much against frameworks initially: tailwind, bootstrap etc. However, when I started really building sites & apps using components, I found tailwind made my life a lot easier, so I could easily see and change styling while writing code/html, and it would only affect that component.

Beforehand, I was trying to come up with names for CSS classes all the time, and then I'd change one thing, and fuck up styling on a diff page.

[–] Karjalan@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Honestly love tailwind. Once you get used to all the names/abbreviations and how they work with sizes and states etc. it's much easier to see what's happening when eyeballing code.

Makes reviewing and bug fixing easier too.

I get that early on it feels annoying. I recall disliking it the first time I learnt it, but then when I went back to regular css and classes I really missed it.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Now it is remembering tags for property instead.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Except that you learn the class names once and re-use them across all your projects, whereas CSS classes are different for every single project.

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Any passable editor nowadays does the heavy lifting for you, you can usually even write the CSS tag you want and it'll show you the options.

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Yep, a component is a good abstraction level, no point in making life difficult by creating and coming up with names for smaller parts.

[–] ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It helps to avoid the specificity problem. You don’t have to manage a complicated class system, you just set styles directly on the elements. Yes this is pretty much what everyone agreed in the past was the worst thing to do but that was before things like CSS variables existed (which Tailwind uses excessively) that lets you control details like color and fonts from a single point. So you don’t have to go through every component to change the brand color.

At work we don’t use Tailwind often but in our React apps we mostly use Theme-UI which lets us write regular CSS on each element in a nice JSON format instead of the class name hell that is Tailwind. This is my preferred way.

[–] 5opn0o30@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is very informative. I avoided Tailwind for the reason you mentioned, but look closer now that I know the difference.

I think it's especially great for smaller apps/sites or prototyping. Setup is quick if you're already comfortable with CLI tools and configs. Or if you just want to get started immediately with no setup, just add a script into your site and when it needs to go into production later you can still do the setup process for a robust build.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Which CSS framework is it that puts this shit everywhere?

That one can die in a fire.

[–] ThunderComplex@lemmy.today 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

fun fact: This isn’t any one specific CSS framework's doing but rather part of how JS UI libraries handle scoped CSS. When you have for example two components that have similar CSS, like one component sets button to color green, another component sets button to blue, then the compiler does this kinda thing because "real" CSS doesn’t support scoping.

So in the above example you'd get button class abcd and button class bcde.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] expr@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm honestly not sure, but I'm fairly certain it's intentional obfuscation done for the production build. Why they think it's so important to hide class names, I'll never know.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

To fight ad blockers

[–] underscores@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 week ago

I've used raw CSS for the last 2 years at work and it's not like it's magically better or my productivity is higher or that it is simpler to read and understand.

Use the tool that works for you, tailwind is fine.

[–] MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Tailwind is for people that don't know how to use CSS properly. There, I said it.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's a common misconception by people who never used it. The truth is you need to know CSS to use Tailwind. Just because it simplifies styling doesn't mean it simplifies the underlying technology.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kora@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It shocks me to see how many programmers think such framework decisions are one-size-fits-all and jump to conclusion that such framework adoption decisions are is due to lack of skillset and experience.

There are many factors at play. You have time to build and maintain your own utility framework, please go ahead.

Two years ago, I led a team which developed a web app that generated 600 million impressions per year. We used Tailwind because we were a small team and I'd rather have my developers work on high value tasks and not maintain a style framework.

If you are an aspiring developer, know this: There are always trade-offs. Not writing pure CSS does not make you a bad developer. Not knowing system design does.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As one who creates usercss to fit pages to my needs, Tailwind is second worst.

[–] Typewar 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I wonder if any colorblind people completely didn't understand this meme

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 4 points 1 week ago

In my personal projects, I don’t use anything. I wrote a set of utilities and functions in SCSS years ago that let me easily create reusable variables and classes that already do what TW does, but with less bloat and overhead. I get project-specific spacing, colors, font classes, everything.

I also highly recommend picking up Andy Bell’s Complete CSS course.

[–] hector@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Tailwind is sooo great, made me extremely productive when scaffolding layouts and managing my palettes.

I really love it :)

[–] Pyro@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Having never used it before, is it that bad?

[–] Piatro@programming.dev 16 points 1 week ago

I've not used it in anger but the principle just seems like inline-styles with extra steps. However I've also had to change something in a large project that had a lot of dedicated classes with specific and shared styles and trying to sort that out without breaking stuff was a massive pain.

[–] notnotmike@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago

No, it is not that bad. It's actually very nice.

It affords a lot of consistency, is relatively easy to understand (once you're familiar with the convention), and theming allows you to modify all the colors and sizing in one file rather than modifying a lot of CSS

I think the worst that can be said about it is that it is unnecessary, but I cannot see a true downside to using it besides personal preference. It gets the job done efficiently and correctly and that's what's important at the end of the day

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

It's actually very useful. All these negative comments have the hallmarks of people who don't generally use it. I can tell because the criticisms stem from a lack of familiarity, missing the point.

[–] scott@lemmy.org 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

At first it seems nice...I played with it for a few hours in an established project and didn't mind. But the I thought about using it from scratch and I'm just baffled anyone does. It's like if CSS was slightly more abbreviated but you couldn't use classes so every style has to be specified on every component.

[–] beeb@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

A lot of ui frameworks are based on tailwind and allow you to customize the components with more tailwind. It's really a win because:

  • it's not "just inline classes", it's a design system (spacing, colors, breakpoints etc are well structured and not random)
  • it is way less verbose than vanilla css and easier to remember
[–] scott@lemmy.org 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Fair enough. What ui framework(s?) on tailwind do you like?

[–] beeb@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I like daisyUI because it doesn't have any Javascript

[–] scott@lemmy.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Tried it. It was terrible. Reverting.

[–] beeb@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

😁 To each their own I guess

[–] scott@lemmy.org 1 points 1 day ago
[–] scott@lemmy.org 1 points 6 days ago

Oooh, that's nice. I might switch to that from bulma, it would reduce the packaged style size

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can still use classes if you want to...

[–] scott@lemmy.org 4 points 1 week ago

Yes but it's also expressly discouraged in the documentation so...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a nicer syntax for inline styles.

If you want to use inline styles everywhere, it's great.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It's much more than just inline styles. It's also design constants (e.g. color palettes, sizing etc.) and utilities (e.g. ring).

[–] paulbg@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

yea it's redundant as hell if not combined with UI libraries that extend it like shadcn / daisyui

[–] lessthanluigi@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago

A very colorblind chart

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They said that You either hate or love tailwind, and when I first used tailwind I assumed it was just a joke, 'why would they hate this? It's simple to use, remember, build, and it even removes unnecessary CSS that I forget to do...'

Apparently it isn't as simple as that.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I guess some people write code, and some people also read and maintain it.

load more comments
view more: next ›