Thing is, when it comes to HTML / CSS frameworks — ALL OF THEM — the very nature by which they work — presentational classes — violates why HTML and CSS exist, why they are separate from each-other, throws caching models and efficiency in the trash, and overall just teaches people how websites should NOT be built!
The very thing that lets them do what they do — for example class=”text-white-600 text-center bg-blue-300 col-4-s col-6-m” — is 100% ignorant incompetent trash dragging practices back to the worst of mid 1990’s HTML 3.2 style development. For people to see merit in something like Bootstrap or Tailwind, they have to be completely ignorant of semantic markup, why separation of presentation from content is important, etc, etc.
The only advantage that MIGHT have any weight or basis in fact is the idea of writing less code. That’s it, the only leg it has to stand on… and it’s SO easily kicked out from underneath it.
I’ve got two articles in particular that cover that aspect in more depth. The more recent one I was hoping would really hammer home the “WHY”.
https://medium.com/codex/why-presentational-classes-for-html-css-are-ignorant-garbage-bcfdb02ec397
That latter one really explains the WHY you really shouldn’t be saying what things look like in the HTML… that being that 1) it’s none of HTML’s business, 2) HTML is for MORE than just sighted users or user-agents, 3) You should have CSS for different media than just screens. Print, speech, tty… and even UA’s we’ve not even thought of yet are all CSS’ bailiwick.
Shitting presentational classes all over the markup isn’t going to give you that, pisses on your caching efficiency and sub-page load times, etc, etc, etc.
It leaves me wonder just what the blazes bootstrap / tailwind / w3.css / pure css users are smoking. I suspect it’s like the line from GTA:San Andreas “That ese put dust in mah weed”.
IT’S THAT DELUSIONAL! And it’s why convincing its fanboys otherwise is like dealing with cultists, evangelicals, or other religious extremist whackjobs.