6 ms·
I wish they would have just stuck with tailwind which is capable of producing the same results, has great adoption, good docs and active development, without ha
by mgerullis 3y ago
I wish they would have just stuck with tailwind which is capable of producing the same results, has great adoption, good docs and active development, without having to roll your own everything over and over again, as is common with css libs.
- mpeg 3y agoI imagine tailwind didn’t exist when they created this. Plus, there are many benefits to this approach vs tailwind; much easier to theme (crucial for fb), easier composition of styles in general and easier refactoring
- michaelcampbell 3y agoIsn't stylex with Typescript type-safe, also? (Which makes various typos and mistakes at least visible in tooling.) Does Tailwind have an equivalent?
- mgerullis 3y agoI use autocomplete and headwind which is more or less just a VSCode plugin to sort the classes. Been very happy with that setup, albeit not “real” type safety
- cantSpellSober 3y agoYes, type safety is a major selling point of StyleX (according to the devs behind it) and No, Tailwind has no equivalent that I'm aware of (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
- cantSpellSober 3y agoThey address CSS utility classes in the docs (mentioning Tailwind by name) https://stylexjs.com/docs/learn/thinking-in-stylex/ https://stylexjs.com/docs/learn/thinking-in-stylex/