Comment by troupo

> That's what led to things like div + class soup that you get with the BEM naming convention or Tailwind.

You could try and think why people end up with BEM or Tailwind. And the answer isn't "because people are not educated about cascade". Both BEM and Tailwind came form people who are very much aware of the cascade.

The problem is that cascade is very much a hindrance in quite a few cases. Especially when you deal with components and design systems.

> To anyone outside the CSS space, this is the closest analogy I can find

All analogies are bullshit.

The truth is that CSS is designed for documents, and for a few decades people have been trying to use it to design/build components: https://x.com/simonswiss/status/1664736786671869952 Cascade is good for the former, and is death for the latter.

And browser vendors have been surprisingly stubborn when it comes to making any improvements to the DX in this area. That's why instead of locally scoped CSS, CSS nesting, CSS mixins (and a bunch of other improvements from SASS and various JS Frameworks) we first got 15 000 JS-only specs around web components, of which 14 999 can be covered by improvements to CSS.

> where developers don't know what the code they're reading/writing is actually going to do.

Lol. Tailwind has made people more aware of what CSS does, with better documentation, than decades of bullshit articles and millions of words of existing docs.