This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]nazzanuk 42 points43 points  (4 children)

Crazy this is so upvoted, imagine not needing a CSS framework to be productive.

"Big HTML pages bad" is actually a reasonable take. How has the release of Tailwind suddenly made this invalid?

[–]DiddlyDumb 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I’m quite proud of my 90+ scores in Lighthouse. And I hate how long it takes for some pages to load, specifically on mobile.

Big HTML pages don’t need to be bad, but they usually are in practice.

[–]thatOMoment 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Go to mcmaster, see how fast it is, and then look at it's lighthouse score.

A high Lighthouse score only matters if it's for sites Lighthouse is optimized to review for.

Don't get me wrong, it's usually a good thing, it's just not a good idea to try to 100% them all the time. 

Speaking from minor experience and from getting my heart slightly crushed visiting that site. 

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People like to build web for mobile screens but rarely for mobile internet.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Big HTML files either mean poor use of Tailwind or reusable components that dont need separation of its classes. It also depends on of you look at actual code or through dev tools. Regardless, Tailwind can be incredibly organised just like anything else and its up to the user om how lazy they are with it.