compiled VS headlessui

tags inside SFCs are typically injected as native </code> tags during development to support hot updates. <strong>For production they can be extracted and merged into a single CSS file.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>There are also 3rd party CSS libs that do the same thing such as <a href="https://linaria.dev/">linaria</a>, <a href="https://vanilla-extract.style/">vanilla-extract</a>, and <a href="https://compiledcssinjs.com/">compiled CSS</a>. Which can be used in the event you're stuck with something that doesn't have baked in support via SFC formats (looking at you React).</p> <p>These are my preferred ways of handing it.</p> <ol> <li>Tailwind</li> </ol> <p>Option 2 is tailwind, which works backwards.</p> <p>That is, instead of the above with extraction where you write the styles, and the framework or libs extract them and replace them with class names, it's the other way around.</p> <p>You're writing class names first (which are essentially aggregated CSS property-values) which then generate and/or reference styles.</p> <p>It has the advantage of being easy to write (assuming you've got editor LSP, linting, etc), but as you've discovered, it's difficult to read / can get really messy really fast.</p> <p>As far as all the other claims on the Tailwind site, it's all marketing, at least 80% bullshit.</p> </div>

Your choice of CSS lib. Bootstrap can still be a valid choice, tho you may want to check the docs of whatever SSR / SSG framework you end up using as they may have better (or worse support). For example if you wanted to do CSS-in-JS (Next) i'd consider Linaria, vanilla-extract, or compiled.

So to be extremely clear, the issue isn't CSS-in-JS per se, it's just that the author only looked at implementations that don't generate create CSS files. He notably mentioned the (apparent) zero-runtime solutions Vanilla Extract and Linaria, only to skip them and complain that Compiled inserts nodes at runtime.

Compiled

Link: https://compiledcssinjs.com/

Compiled (Compile time CSS-in-JS solution from Atlassian)

Stitches Is near zero runtime and vanilla-extract claims it's zero runtime and typed. There's atlassian compiled as well but I never used it.

Author here, I haven't had time to play around with it, but this library[0] from Atlassian looks like a "best of the both worlds" styling approach: CSS-in-JS authorship without the runtime penalty.

[0] https://compiledcssinjs.com/

Catalyst is a comprehensive, fully componentized UI kit for modern React projects, built on the next generation of Headless UI. With Catalyst, you can create a custom set of components to use and reuse in your projects.

And that is why I was looking for a UI library that would deliver these things for a long time and today I am happy to announce that I have found it! It is Headless UI by the Tailwind Team.

Headless UI provides a suite of unstyled, fully accessible UI components perfect for developers who want full control over their interface design. It's a developer's canvas, offering the foundational parts needed to build a user interface without dictating the aesthetics, making it ideal for those who love to integrate with Tailwind CSS. With https://headlessui.com/, you can ensure that your applications are inclusive and easy to use for everyone, while also maintaining the freedom to craft a unique look and feel that aligns with your brand or style guidelines.

GitHub stars: 22.5k GitHub link: https://github.com/tailwindlabs/headlessui Documentation: https://headlessui.com/

Website: Headless UI

Few months ago, I discovered project called Headless UI and I instantly liked the idea.

In addition to Tailwind CSS, Tailwind Labs also created Headless UI, a collection of components that work well with Tailwind CSS.

Tailwind - Headless UI

Thanks for sharing! I love projects that reimagine entire ecosystems: there's a lot of value in imagining what could be if we didn't worry about what is.

Some feedback: your comparison of the various ListBox implementations[0] feels disingenuous. I know Vue best, so I looked at that implementation in detail, and it's got a lot going on that you don't attempt to replicate in your version. A few key features that are missing:

* Search—in the HeadlessUI version there are several hundred lines dedicated to making typing work for jumping to specific list items.

* Multiselect—HeadlessUI supports multiple selections, yours does not appear to. Again, this occupies a lot of lines.

* Focus management—HeadlessUI has a lot of code dedicated to smoothing out the focus management. In my testing, your implementation has pretty buggy support for using tab to navigate.

* The HeadlessUI version dedicates a lot of lines to types, where your Nue implementation is dynamically typed. This may be a feature for you, but in my mind those type declarations are doing important work.

* In general, the HeadlessUI implementation tries to be flexible for many use cases [2], while yours only needs to support the one demo list.

You also include this render.ts file [1] from HeadlessUI, which is more part of a bespoke sub-framework used by HeadlessUI than it is a necessary part of any old Vue ListBox implementation. If you're going to count that against Vue, then there are parts of Nue JS that should be included as well.

These kinds of comparisons are most persuasive if you can write all the implementations from the ground up, using idiomatic patterns for each framework and identical feature sets for each implementation. When you do that, it's easy to compare and contrast the frameworks. As it is, it's like comparing a house to a garden shed: yes, you've used fewer lines of code, but it's not obvious to me that that's a feature of Nue and not just a byproduct of a less ambitious component.

[0] https://nuejs.org/compare/component.html

[1] https://github.com/tailwindlabs/headlessui/blob/%40headlessu...

[2] https://headlessui.com/vue/listbox#component-apihttps://head...