A poster child for everything wrong with HTML/CSS frameworks. They really are nube predator nonsense taking advantage of those who never learn enough about HTML or CSS to be coding either.
No offense, that's not on you, that's on an industry that doesn't teach HTML properly form the start, filled with scam artists and know nothings like Udemy and W3Schools.
Why do I say this?
Endless pointless presentational classes recreating everything wrong with HTML 3.2, gibberish semantics like STRONG doing numbered heading's job, attributes like TARGET that have little business on websites after 1998, static images in the markup where they can't be cached...
I don't think I'll ever understand how or why people can say that these frameworks are simpler, easier, or better for ANYTHING. It's all a bald faced lie.
As evidenced by your 21k of markup to deliver 4.34k of plaintext without a single content media element in sight, likely not even 8k of HTML's job. Just as a layout like this for a single page probably doesn't need more than 10k of vanilla CSS, leaving one wondering just what "advantages" failwind has given you.
Hell, just the fact they teach you to their bull in without media="screen" should tell you all you need to know about how unqualified Wathan and his ilk are for telling ANYONE how to make a website.
I just don't get the appeal of telling the entire reason CSS exists to sod off.
Since it was the first time that I tried Tailwind CSS, It took lots of time for me to get to know about their classes. I think I could've made it quicker if I did it just with CSS. I don’t think I am going to use it a lot because I like to have more of freedom when I’m styling things without limitation which I felt with framework(but It can be because I don’t know much about them as well) and I also personally prefer spending my time learning more about CSS than the framework.
But still I believe it can be useful if someone is making something like prototype just to see things very quickly and aware of their classes already and how it works.
However, as I already mentioned on the post if I have to build something properly and I want it to be perfect, it’s not going to be my top choice. I wrote the post because I am writing most things that I learn everyday for future reference.
That "limitation" you felt was likely due to your having a grasp of HTML and CSS before you used them. These frameworks are more to learn, make you write as much if not more code, make everything harder to do. The polar opposite of their marketing blurbs. It's outright delusional the praises people sing about them.
I've said it for a long time, the people who CREATED these types of "frameworks" never learned the point of HTML or embraced the separation of concerns. All they do is recreate everything that was wrong with HTML 3.2 by putting classes in the markup to say what things look like. For screen... without even saying that said style is JUST for screen by including media="screen" on their LINK
It's really one of the biggest telltales that you're learning from someone not qualified to make websites. They use style="" and STYLE all over the place, and IF they use an external stylesheet, it's just blindly LINKed in with no media targets. When you see that in all but the rarest of corner cases, you're looking at the pesky 3i of web development. Ignorance, incompetence, and ineptitude.
Only two of those are an insult. Ignorance just means you don't know any better. We can fix ignorance. We ALL start out ignorant. Most everyone remains ignorant of something. There is no shame to ignorance. It's only once you've been told and continue to do it that it becomes a problem.
Sadly -- at least in my line of work -- the latter two are becoming all too commonplace. :(
I'd say that if the framework felt limiting, then you've got a good instinct. Trust your gut on this one.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
A poster child for everything wrong with HTML/CSS frameworks. They really are nube predator nonsense taking advantage of those who never learn enough about HTML or CSS to be coding either.
No offense, that's not on you, that's on an industry that doesn't teach HTML properly form the start, filled with scam artists and know nothings like Udemy and W3Schools.
Why do I say this?
Endless pointless presentational classes recreating everything wrong with HTML 3.2, gibberish semantics like STRONG doing numbered heading's job, attributes like TARGET that have little business on websites after 1998, static images in the markup where they can't be cached...
I don't think I'll ever understand how or why people can say that these frameworks are simpler, easier, or better for ANYTHING. It's all a bald faced lie.
As evidenced by your 21k of markup to deliver 4.34k of plaintext without a single content media element in sight, likely not even 8k of HTML's job. Just as a layout like this for a single page probably doesn't need more than 10k of vanilla CSS, leaving one wondering just what "advantages" failwind has given you.
Hell, just the fact they teach you to their bull in without media="screen" should tell you all you need to know about how unqualified Wathan and his ilk are for telling ANYONE how to make a website.
I just don't get the appeal of telling the entire reason CSS exists to sod off.
Since it was the first time that I tried Tailwind CSS, It took lots of time for me to get to know about their classes. I think I could've made it quicker if I did it just with CSS. I don’t think I am going to use it a lot because I like to have more of freedom when I’m styling things without limitation which I felt with framework(but It can be because I don’t know much about them as well) and I also personally prefer spending my time learning more about CSS than the framework.
But still I believe it can be useful if someone is making something like prototype just to see things very quickly and aware of their classes already and how it works.
However, as I already mentioned on the post if I have to build something properly and I want it to be perfect, it’s not going to be my top choice. I wrote the post because I am writing most things that I learn everyday for future reference.
That "limitation" you felt was likely due to your having a grasp of HTML and CSS before you used them. These frameworks are more to learn, make you write as much if not more code, make everything harder to do. The polar opposite of their marketing blurbs. It's outright delusional the praises people sing about them.
I've said it for a long time, the people who CREATED these types of "frameworks" never learned the point of HTML or embraced the separation of concerns. All they do is recreate everything that was wrong with HTML 3.2 by putting classes in the markup to say what things look like. For screen... without even saying that said style is JUST for screen by including media="screen" on their LINK
It's really one of the biggest telltales that you're learning from someone not qualified to make websites. They use style="" and STYLE all over the place, and IF they use an external stylesheet, it's just blindly LINKed in with no media targets. When you see that in all but the rarest of corner cases, you're looking at the pesky 3i of web development. Ignorance, incompetence, and ineptitude.
Only two of those are an insult. Ignorance just means you don't know any better. We can fix ignorance. We ALL start out ignorant. Most everyone remains ignorant of something. There is no shame to ignorance. It's only once you've been told and continue to do it that it becomes a problem.
Sadly -- at least in my line of work -- the latter two are becoming all too commonplace. :(
I'd say that if the framework felt limiting, then you've got a good instinct. Trust your gut on this one.