bedrock VS Tailwind CSS

There are ready-made boilerplates like Bedrock and Sword but, at an architectural level, I'm not a fan of any I've seen.

Node (within the docker container) to build theme assets, composer to manage WordPress core + plugins and other dependencies. I built something similar to Roots for project boilerplate, custom starter theme and in-house mu-plugin within it.

Is this any good? https://roots.io/bedrock/ for a plugin?

As I only really use it for keeping stuff up to date, I'm looking at using Roots Bedrock for my next project. I'll then be keeping everything up to date via composer.

What advantages does WordPlate have over Bedrock[1], some of whose packages WordPlate also uses?

[1] https://roots.io/bedrock/

Probably looking for a https://roots.io/bedrock/

WordPress on containers is a very different beast if you actually want to use any of the advantages of containers. You probably need to figure out how to run upgrades by building a new image and not with the WP installer (which you need to disable to not have sudden version rollbacks). You probably want your plugins managed by compose and not a user. You probably want an S3 plugin for media. In fact, you probably want Bedrock. This is not a "single day task", just taking in the requirements and design phase is easily a day or two.

I'd strongly advice using Bedrock ( https://roots.io/bedrock/ ) and possibly even Sage

No, as far as I know it’s not that easy to accomplish with WordPress. You can use Bedrock (https://roots.io/bedrock/ ) as a Boilerplate for your development process. The Database can not be cloned to each environment that easily. Because every instance is working on it’s own. So if others want to work on their local machine they need a database dump which they have to setup manually on their machine. The only way that comes in my mind is to set up a development site that is accessible for every developer. You could then connect your local WordPress environment with the database from that development site. Everyone would than be working in the same database and everybody could see the changes someone else is making. But I think that wouldn’t be best practice but could be an option.

Finally, for our front end, we’re going to be pairing Next.js with the great combination of TailwindCSS and shadcn/ui so we can focus on building the functionality of the app and let them handle making it look awesome!

You can use any frontend framework you want — react-based tooling, however, has a natural advantage as it models everything as a function of state, which can map 1:1 with the concept in Burr. In the demo app we use react, react-query, and tailwind, but we’ll be skipping over this largely (it is not central to the purpose of the post).

Tailwind CSS: A utility-first CSS framework for rapidly building custom designs.

First, you need to make sure that you have a working Tailwind CSS project…

Tailwind CSS

With better CSS approaches like TailwindCSS and Vanilla Extract (which we're heavily using) it's much easier to maintain the UI and make sure it doesn't change unexpectedly. No more conflicting CSS classes, much less CSS specificity issues and much less CSS code in general.

This app was built with Svelte Kit, Tailwind CSS, and many other technologies. For a full rundown, please visit the GitHub repository

Unlike Tailwind, which has over 77,000 stars on GitHub, Mojo CSS has about 200 stars on GitHub. But the Mojo CSS documentation is fairly good and you can find most of the information you’ll need there.

JavaScript React Flowbite Tailwind Firebase - Auth, Database, and Hosting Vite

- Performance is a feature.

Another common interpretation of brutalism is aesthetic, reacting to overly complicated user interfaces by creating simpler, more direct ones. Tailwind CSS (https://tailwindcss.com), one of today's most popular CSS libraries, promotes this approach in its component examples. There's also a neat library I've seen recently called "Neobrutalism Components" for React that I like (https://neobrutalism-components.vercel.app), providing components with a similar look and feel to Gumroad. This might more accurately be called 'Neo-Brutalism,' as noted in the comments.

A more engineering-centric interpretation of Brutalism focuses on form, structure, and efficiency, drawing significantly from brutalist architecture principles. Apart from the user interface itself, most mobile, desktop, and web applications are extremely bloated and often perform worse than sites from 10 years ago did. While one HTML file might be "less brutalist" than the original HN site, it is substantially more brutalist than any HN mobile app in existence, and offers nearly identical functionality.

A broader interpretation of brutalism, which could be termed 'Meta-Brutalism,' is embodied in the overall experience on this site through UX flows. Yes, in the strictest sense, the original HN site is more Brutalist in many ways, but it only shows 30 articles at a time and does not function as a PWA. For this site, the experience of reading 10 stories is arguably less brutalist, but for quickly browsing through several pages and skimming articles (which is how I read HN) it is a lot faster, and in my opinion, more Brutalist.

My primary inspiration was addressing software and tool bloat in UIs rather than strictly adhering to every principle set forth by David Bryant Copeland. I don't find it convincing that this site "isn't brutalist" compared to really any other experience apart from the Main HN site, and I would argue the overall experience is more brutalist in its performance and scrolling behavior.

As a side note: I generally don't like Brutalist architecture that much although I believe it is unfairly maligned. I visited the Salk Institute once and enjoyed it though (https://www.archdaily.com/61288/ad-classics-salk-institute-l...).