Comment by spockz
2 days ago
I really don’t understand this idea that seems to be prevalent to let the LLM generate everything from scratch instead of using existing battle tested frameworks. Be it for css or backend code.
Good modular design of software and separation of concern are still important for debugging and lifecycle. For (instructing) the llm it will also be easier if it uses frameworks as the resulting code of the project itself will remain smaller, reducing the context for both llm and human.
CSS simply doesn't need a framework - there's no "from scratch". For humans or LLM authors.
Tailwind is a lot of overhead conceptually and tooling wise to just not have to write classnames, and it's actually anti-modular.
That's not the full picture.
If you're a senior CSS developer you will invariably reach a point of using "object oriented CSS" which is where you combine classes to an effect.
At that point you're not far off Tailwind. TW just took it all the way.
Can you explain? Tailwind massively reduces overhead for abstraction, classing, documentation, and maintenance.
AFAICT, Tailwind is largely (not entirely) a different, shorter syntax for writing inline styles. (E.g., "class: 'bg-white'" = "style: 'background-color: white'".)
If you've rejected structural CSS to begin with, I sort of get the point that it saves a lot of typing; otherwise I don't see how it helps all that much over SASS or just modern plain CSS.
2 replies →
Supply chain risk is real. Granted in CSS it’s probably less of a concern than in code, but it cannot be denied. LLMs make the proposition of supply chain reduction not irrational at the very least.