Is Tailwind CSS Overrated? A Look at Its Limitations and Bootstrap as an Alternative
Tailwind CSS has gained some popularity in the web development community, praised for its utility-first approach and flexibility. But there are areas where it may not be the most efficient solution. This article explores some of the potential drawbacks of Tailwind and why Bootstrap remains a viable, and in some cases, a more effective alternative.
1. Overhead of Utility-First Styling
One of Tailwind’s main selling points is that it removes the need for writing custom CSS by offering utility classes for almost every styling scenario. However, this approach can lead to excessive class names in HTML, making it harder to read and maintain. While it does eliminate the need for traditional CSS files, it can introduce complexity within the markup itself.
For example, a simple button in Bootstrap might be:
<button class="btn btn-primary">Click Me</button>Whereas in Tailwind, achieving a similar result might require:
<button class="px-4 py-2 bg-blue-500 text-white rounded shadow hover:bg-blue-600">Click Me</button>This verbosity can make the code harder to manage, especially in large projects where design consistency is crucial. It feels like a regression and perhaps a glorified framework of in-line styling.
Take a look at this example using Flowbite to manage popovers, and not the amount of classes to apply just to get it working. How anyone is meant to recite this from their head I don’t know.
<div data-popover id="popover-top" role="tooltip" class="absolute z-10 invisible inline-block w-64 text-sm text-gray-500 transition-opacity duration-300 bg-white border border-gray-200 rounded-lg shadow-xs opacity-0 dark:text-gray-400 dark:border-gray-600 dark:bg-gray-800"> <div class="px-3 py-2 bg-gray-100 border-b border-gray-200 rounded-t-lg dark:border-gray-600 dark:bg-gray-700">
<h3 class="font-semibold text-gray-900 dark:text-white">Popover top</h3>
</div>
<div class="px-3 py-2">
<p>And here's some amazing content. It's very engaging. Right?</p>
</div>
<div data-popper-arrow></div>
</div>In a simpler example, for a link, two classes need to be explicitly applied to even make it look like a link:
<a href="https://myurl.com" class="text-blue-600 hover:underline">My URL</a>Leaving out these classes, gives you a black unidentified text link. So, the developer is left to decide text-blue-600, or text-blue-700, and is likely to consider (and “choose”) design options like text-grey-400 which would be a departure from the design guide. And explicit inclusion of “hover:underline” – when is this ever a consideration when you’re trying to develop consistent forms.
These unnecessary class inclusion requirements go against “Cascading” and CSS inheritance and pave the way for messy and inconsistent UIs that take longer to build and add cognitive friction to front end developers not overly concerned with the design system.
2. Lack of Built-in Components
Tailwind provides a styling framework but does not include pre-built components like modals, accordions, or popovers. Developers often need to rely on third-party libraries such as Flowbite or Headless UI to implement such features, adding additional dependencies and increasing the learning curve.
In contrast, Bootstrap comes with an extensive library of ready-to-use components, saving development time and ensuring built-in accessibility and responsiveness.
3. Configuration Overhead
While Tailwind’s customization options are powerful, they often require extensive configuration through tailwind.config.js. This adds an additional layer of setup, which may not be ideal for teams looking for quick implementation.
Bootstrap, on the other hand, works well out of the box. It provides default styling that can be overridden as needed, without requiring deep configuration unless desired.
4. Readability and Maintainability
Utility classes make individual elements self-contained, but this can also make projects harder to maintain. Instead of defining reusable styles in CSS or SCSS files, developers must manage long lists of utility classes across multiple HTML files. This can be problematic for larger projects where global design changes need to be implemented efficiently.
Bootstrap’s approach, which encourages reusable class-based styles, allows for a more structured separation of concerns, making it easier to maintain a consistent design system.
5. Bootstrap’s Balanced Approach
While Tailwind provides maximum flexibility, Bootstrap strikes a balance between customization and usability. It offers:
- A well-structured grid system
- Readily available UI components
- Responsive design patterns
- A more intuitive learning curve for developers already familiar with traditional CSS
Tailwind can be a powerful tool when used correctly, but it is not necessarily the best fit for every project. For teams that need a comprehensive, component-rich framework with built-in accessibility and a shorter setup time, Bootstrap remains a compelling alternative.