The problem in this discussion is that most of us are happy with Tailwind based on our experience using it, and our experience with previous approaches. And not just because it's "easier to get started".
And from what I can tell, most of us do care about portability and componentization.
If your experience is different, then that's interesting, but not much of an argument in itself. Either 1) we're just much worse at this than you are, 2) your use cases and projects are more unusual/uncommon, or 3) what you think is 'easy to do' perhaps is not, and perhaps you'd benefit from a more Tailwind-like approach too.
Obviously if what works for you, that's fine. I don't use Tailwind in all my projects, and in some cases wouldn't even do so if I could. And it's not like what came before is entirely unworkable.
But it feels a bit dismissive to argue that our experiences are just wrong, or that we're just taking the lazy way out.
And from what I can tell, most of us do care about portability and componentization.
If your experience is different, then that's interesting, but not much of an argument in itself. Either 1) we're just much worse at this than you are, 2) your use cases and projects are more unusual/uncommon, or 3) what you think is 'easy to do' perhaps is not, and perhaps you'd benefit from a more Tailwind-like approach too.
Obviously if what works for you, that's fine. I don't use Tailwind in all my projects, and in some cases wouldn't even do so if I could. And it's not like what came before is entirely unworkable.
But it feels a bit dismissive to argue that our experiences are just wrong, or that we're just taking the lazy way out.