The author is pretty active on /r/roguelikedev and definitely still works on this and the original library

Agreed. My team is doing this very process. If we run into not knowing what class to use, we just look it up on the docs. VSCode also has a great intellisense plugin for tailwind as well (https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=bradlc.v...). For the first day or two we used the docs pretty heavily. Now, we just make a best guess, intellisense generally tells us what the class name actually is, and if we can't figure it out then we go to the docs.

I use tailwind with Angular, and we solve this with using [ngClass] to add/remove the class. You could do something similar with plain JS as well, and I imagine in most frameworks. Although yes, that is annoying to have to deal with.

That’s not quite it.

Say you’re balancing a bunch of colours where it’s say mostly black, but you need to change to green in some case and red in others.

In css this is easy because you can say “for this situation I want this colour”. And you can order your rules in a sensible way so the more specific cases trump the general ones.

In tailwind you can’t do that because “text-red text-black” etc is ordered by the order in which the utility classes are added to the page. So you have to make sure you don’t add two conflicting classes.

That case doesn’t seem so bad, but once you get a few different properties to control and a few different scenarios, it gets pretty messy.

>This works okay in extremely componentized web apps. It's a nightmare if your UI isn't highly componentized. I've seen projects where you make a button by copy pasting this ~80 character string of tailwind classes all over the place, and then changing the color names if you need to. Good luck fixing that when the designer decides that we don't want any buttons to have rounded corners anymore.

That app is done wrong. If you are using the same styles to represent a button you should use postcss and do

.myButtonClass { @extend: (80 tailwind classes here) }

Or make a Button component in your framework of choice.

    function Button = ({ children }) => <button className={80 tailwind classes here}>{children}</button>

    <Button>Create</Button>
    <Button>Edit</Button> // Same style
    <Button>Delete</Button> // Same style

No, we don't want all of the buttons to look identical.

Some are big and some are small; some are bold and primary and some are muted and secondary; some have icons; some have shadows; some are disabled, etc, etc.

It's easy to make them identical. The challenge is to be as flexible as necessary in a mature application, while minimizing verbosity and complexity.

In my experience Tailwind hurts more than it helps here. It forces you to use your component system to abstract things which otherwise wouldn't warrant the extra level of indirection.

You should look more into design systems. It's not only for Figma files but can structure your whole frontend. To extend on the example above, you can do something like :

  <Button variation="primary" size="large">Primary Button</Button>
  <Button variation="secondary" size="medium">Medium</Button>
  <Button variation="tertiary" size="small">Small</Button>

If you a 100 different types of buttons I can see your problem, if it is more like 5 then you just create them first and then makes the code more DRY.

For example when using React you can create 5 button components first and the refactor your code to make the 5 buttons use/call a generic button. Or have 2 generic buttons if the combinations are hard to handle. The thing with atomic CSS like Tailwind is that it very easy to quickly create a few different buttons.

How would you have done it without TailWind? You'd still have to create classes for each of them in plain css anyway, except it would probably be in a different .css file. The inherent complexity pertaining to your app is not taken away, it just moved the places.

My point is that plain CSS is already good at this. So then you don't need to make more components with their own interface to learn.

    <button class="btn large shadow">Edit</button>

    .btn {
      ...default button styles
    }

    .btn.large {
      font-size: larger;
    }

    .btn.shadow {
      box-shadow: 0 0 8px #0004;
    }

but now to understand what a single class might do to an elements style i have to check for ever possible combination .e.g

.btn.large {} .field.large {} .fieldgroup.large {} .title.large {} .link.large {} .large {}

to find all the elements that the .field.large declaration impacts we need to enumerate all the elements that have both .field and .large in any order.

we've coupled out html and css files

Even then, I would still recommend using the postcss extend tag. Much easier to read that way. Also, postcss doesn't require any frameworks, you can still do everything with plain ol' html and javascript.

Yes, there is a right way to do it. But in the code I've seen in the wild, people are often not doing it right and those 80 char strings of utility classes are on the low side compared to some of what I've seen. I'm skeptical of Tailwind not for its own sake but because a lot of (most?) shops do not have the discipline to use it effectively. And what you are arguing here is basically a no true Scotsman defense.

I wonder if there's an ESLint rule out there to limit how many tailwind classes you throw onto one thing...

Doesn't that negate most of the benefits of using Tailwind in the first place?

Not at all. You design and iterate on the button using the individual classes, then you swap them out for a concise class once you are done. It's how tailwind is designed to be used.

https://tailwindcss.com/docs/reusing-styles

Although I realize in looking this up in the documentation to show you, it's actually @apply and not @extend you are supposed to use.

Using @apply is the ultimate last resort though.

postcss is literally how tailwind works. If you are using tailwind, you already have postcss. I get it, you don't like modern frameworks. Don't use it.

>If you count someone else's server as "serverless"

That's literally what serverless is. Serverless doesn't mean there are no servers. It is simply the ability to run your code without having to think about the server it is running on. More server agnostic than serverless.

>I assume "Taiwan region" is simply something to satisfy the PRC gov't (CCP) which believes Taiwan is a part of its country and governed by PRC.

To be fair, Taiwan (Officially the Republic of China) also claims that it is a part of China and is in fact the rightful rulers of China. The Kuomintang withdrew to Taiwan after losing control of mainland China to Mao and the Communists. I'm not super up to date on the latest claims between China and Taiwan, but Taiwan has never recognized officially that they do not rightfully control China.

Going to be brushing up on c++ and game development. 2022 is going to finally be the year in which I seriously make a game.

Now you need to determine if you like the video for what it is, instead of relying on the masses to tell you if you dislike the video.

Or, you know, just read the comments.

I always determined whether I liked a video for what it was anyway, I never disliked a video if other people disliked it. But for me the like dislike ratio helped avoid scams. I feel that scammers are empowered by having only the like counter display

I was using it to determine of I was being unfair in my critique.

If nobody else is disliking it maybe my biases are effecting my perception.

Not everything is confirmation bias. Some people use social feedback to regulate themselves into not being total weirdos.

I have upvoted your comment, but feel the need to inform you that I am, in fact, a total weirdo. So, take that as you will.

Every hiring manager is different. Some have some bullshit "requires 3 years in this stack" kind of requirements. Personally I feel like the important thing is knowing how to program period. I think knowing paradigms is what's more important than stacks. Id take someone who knows how to build a oop backend with a spa front end for my position I'm hiring for even if they don't have specifically .net/angular experience. You can always ramp up on the specifics while learning paradigms can be much harder.

What do you think feminism has taken away from men?

Male spaces. The freedom to vent about male issues.

Feminism goes out of their way to cancel male spaces while building up female spaces. Video games made by men for men? Bad, needs to include women! And so on. But when men tries to get a place in female spaces they just say "go make your own, don't depend on women for everything!", as if they let men make their own spaces...

Feminism also started shaming men who complain about women. Women are still allowed to complain freely about men. Don't they understand how damaging this is for men's mental health that they aren't allowed to let out steam while women are free to do so?

And lastly they are practicing a lot of toxic masculinity. If I bring up male issues as I did here, feminists will come and say things like "Are you so weak that you need to complain and let out steam just to manage your day? Grow up!", or "Why do you need your own space, can't you handle women around you? Don't be a child, just learn how to socialize and all your issues are solved!". Those are examples of toxic masculinity, they fail to acknowledge that there are actually a lot of weak men out there who would benefit greatly from having greater access to these things. But instead they just say that men have to be stoic or they aren't welcome in feminist society. And I bet this post will get such toxic masculinity responses from feminists who argue that men just have to be more stoic and everything will be fine.

"But feminists says men should cry more!", they say that, but they don't mean it. If a man cries such that it inconveniences a woman, guess what? It is the man who is bad. The woman complaining about the main crying is obviously correct, the man should have been stronger, but now he is so weak that it burdens the woman and that is bad. "But you can't expect a person to handle too much emotional labor!", well, the thing is, I've never seen a situation where a woman complained about a man crying and feminists didn't took her side. How can that be taken as anything but toxic masculinity? If they really wanted men to cry more then they should encourage women to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry.

There are a lot of strawman arguments here. I've never heard feminists say any of these things because they are antithetical to the concept of equality for all. I'm a feminist, and asking for men's spaces is something I do. Feminists want spaces for men. Feminists want people to bring up male issues. Feminists don't want men to be stoic.

> If they really wanted men to cry more then they should encourage women to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry.

There's some truth to this, but it's also omitting something that's extremely important (and therefore changes the entire tone of this argument): we should also encourage men to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry. It's not men vs. women. It's men and women together. That's what feminism is.

> I've never heard feminists say any of these things because they are antithetical to the concept of equality for all.

No true Scotsman there. It is true that people who say that aren't for equality, but they still call themselves feminists and feminists still welcome them as their own. That is the point, feminism as a movement isn't really for equality, they say they are but they aren't really or else those wouldn't get accepted in the movement. Your movement gets colored by the rotten apples in it, just like mens right has a lot of bad apples so do feminism, and what those bad apples do will also get attributed to feminism even if you think it shouldn't.

> There's some truth to this, but it's also omitting something that's extremely important (and therefore changes the entire tone of this argument): we should also encourage men to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry. It's not men vs. women. It's men and women together. That's what feminism is.

You say it is men and women together here, but why do they just blame men for this? Most men live with a woman just as most women live with a man. The woman is his closest link, she is what affects him the most, if she practices toxic masculinity then there isn't much he can do. And as most men have experienced women like that they will teach their kids and each other that they have to be stoic and not cry, since otherwise women will not see them as a man. Sure, there are women out there who can accept a man who cries and do it well. But, as long as there are lots of toxic women out there who refuses to let a man cry there isn't much men can do, the "men don't cry" will live on as long as such women exists. And feminism doesn't try to do anything at all about those women.

I'm defining feminism, as defined in literature such as _Feminism is for Everybody_. It's a pretty objective definition, as these are the grounding principles of the movement.

> feminism as a movement isn't really for equality, they say they are but they aren't really or else those wouldn't get accepted in the movement

You keep bringing this up, but you haven't provided proof. Whereas people blaming women (instead of cultural sexism as a whole that's practiced by both men and women, and therefore the target of feminism) for their problems has plenty of proof in the comments here.

To be fair, there are people who call themselves feminists while being toxic, such as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Mainstream feminism decries these groups, as evidenced by the backlash against J.K. Rowling. This kind of exclusionary behavior is _not_ acceptable.

And finally, if you believe in equality, then let's champion it. Even if you believe that women are making it hard for you, positively commend those who are behaving in an equitable way, and the same for men who are behavior in an equitable way. _We_ get to decide how the world should be. Let's make it happen!

> To be fair, there are people who call themselves feminists while being toxic, such as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Mainstream feminism decries these groups, as evidenced by the backlash against J.K. Rowling. This kind of exclusionary behavior is _not_ acceptable.

But they don't reject the "kill all men" people. That is just a harmless joke apparently. And I bet you will defend that statement right now, since way too many feminists have defended it and if you accept that the phrase is bad then you admit that you are wrong. Maybe we need a "MERF" terminology, Male Exclusionary Radical Feminists to denote the bad apples you say aren't really feminists? But until that term appears and the movement actually takes a stance the movement wont be for everyone.

> I'm defining feminism, as defined in literature such as _Feminism is for Everybody_

Right, just take their marketing material. Also, you know, Trump really just wanted to make America great again, that is what he said, why should we look at what he actually do instead of just listening to a slogan?

>No true Scotsman there.

No, it isn't. You are just imagining that woman and feminist are synonyms. They are not.

>Feminism goes out of their way to cancel male spaces while building up female spaces. Video games made by men for men? Bad, needs to include women!

Oh yes, I totally remember the Feminist Jihad of 2016 when women rose up and destroyed Video Games forever!

Do you think that having diversity in video games, both in the creation and consumption of it is somehow destroying video games? If so that is your own sexism talking.

>as if they let men make their own spaces...

Men are free to make their own spaces. They do it all the time actually.

>Feminism also started shaming men who complain about women. Women are still allowed to complain freely about men. Don't they understand how damaging this is for men's mental health that they aren't allowed to let out steam while women are free to do so?

I can still complain about women. So can you. Feminists haven't stopped that. Unless by complain and let out steam about women you mean being misogynistic, then yeah that's your own sexism talking.

>If I bring up male issues as I did here, feminists will come and say things like "Are you so weak that you need to complain and let out steam just to manage your day? Grow up!", or "Why do you need your own space, can't you handle women around you? Don't be a child, just learn how to socialize and all your issues are solved!".

Emphasis on "how you did here" because what you are doing is creating straw men and being sexist. However men are free to talk about male issues. https://old.reddit.com/r/MensLib

Also, feminists aren't saying the shit you claim they are saying about men there. Not all women are feminists. Especially since you are claiming that

>But instead they just say that men have to be stoic or they aren't welcome in feminist society. And I bet this post will get such toxic masculinity responses from feminists who argue that men just have to be more stoic and everything will be fine.

Because feminists do not want men to be Stoics. They literally want men to talk about their issues, their emotions, and their wants and desires. The opposite of stoicism.

>But feminists says men should cry more!", they say that, but they don't mean it. If a man cries such that it inconveniences a woman, guess what? It is the man who is bad. The woman complaining about the main crying is obviously correct, the man should have been stronger, but now he is so weak that it burdens the woman and that is bad. "But you can't expect a person to handle too much emotional labor!", well, the thing is, I've never seen a situation where a woman complained about a man crying and feminists didn't took her side.

Again, I question if you've ever actually talked to a feminist before. I cry in front of my wife all the time. Feminists do not want men to be strong to the point of not wanting them to have emotions. That's not what feminism is about, at all. That's a prime example of internalized patriarchy on the part of the woman. You seem to think that feminist === woman. That is not at all the case.