Interesting analogy to TS (which I'm also a fan of). I hadn't really thought about it like that but I think there is truth to it.
As you say, the fact is that we've got all of these standards that can't be be changed without breaking the web. Those standards were also first created for a different time, so it's not surprising that some assumptions turned out to be poor.
As a result, we've ended up in a place where tools treat those standards as compilation targets. This isn't a bad thing per se but it does lead to a lot of complexity in the tool chain.
I think part of why I like tailwind is that it almost feels like I'm using plain old CSS. I get the same amount of flexibility (as much as I need anyway), but I don't feel like there is some great abstraction in between me and the styles I want the framework to produce. At the same time, it's quicker and easier to use.
Anyway, I'm aware it's a pretty divisive tool. I see a lot of strong opinions about it on HN!
As you say, the fact is that we've got all of these standards that can't be be changed without breaking the web. Those standards were also first created for a different time, so it's not surprising that some assumptions turned out to be poor.
As a result, we've ended up in a place where tools treat those standards as compilation targets. This isn't a bad thing per se but it does lead to a lot of complexity in the tool chain.
I think part of why I like tailwind is that it almost feels like I'm using plain old CSS. I get the same amount of flexibility (as much as I need anyway), but I don't feel like there is some great abstraction in between me and the styles I want the framework to produce. At the same time, it's quicker and easier to use.
Anyway, I'm aware it's a pretty divisive tool. I see a lot of strong opinions about it on HN!
EDIT: grammar