> Tailwind does nothing to reduce the mental load on your developers to understand, read, and write in your codebase. In fact it does the opposite. Your developers are not spared the hassle of learning CSS by instead learning tailwind's abstractions. Developers have to understand not just that background-color is the CSS key to set a background color, but they also must understand that classes prefixed with bg- mean background color. Every feature of CSS, such as media and container queries, will need to be learned twice, CSS style and Tailwind style.
Just wrong. The whole point of 1:1 style:class mappings is that you don't have hidden structures relating the DOM to your stylesheet's class abstractions.
If you're going to talk overhead, talk about all the abstractions and hidden structures you have to learn in a codebase written in the "correct" way to do CSS. It's just incomparable.
Tailwind's class names are trivial to learn for anyone that already understands CSS. It's minimal overhead compared to learning CSS. "Learning it twice" is completely inaccurate.
Just wrong. The whole point of 1:1 style:class mappings is that you don't have hidden structures relating the DOM to your stylesheet's class abstractions.
If you're going to talk overhead, talk about all the abstractions and hidden structures you have to learn in a codebase written in the "correct" way to do CSS. It's just incomparable.
Tailwind's class names are trivial to learn for anyone that already understands CSS. It's minimal overhead compared to learning CSS. "Learning it twice" is completely inaccurate.