Nuxt.js VS Tailwind CSS

According to Node Package Manager (NPM), Next.js has about 3.9 million weekly downloads while Nuxt.js has about 438,000. Although Next.js has a significantly higher number of weekly downloads, Nuxt.js still has a robust number of users. We can conclude that both frameworks are relevant and will stand the test of time.

Nuxt team themselves pointed that out [in first release](https://www.npmjs.com/package/nuxt/v/0.0.1) as well as you can see that statement in [Nuxt's wikipedia article](https://cdn.domin.pro/K2Qa). I completely agree with how Nuxt is better for an amount of features.

Node is basically back-end Javascript. While powerful alone, almost exclusively you will use a back-end framework like Next.js or Gatsby when using React, and then maybe Nuxt or Gridsome in Vue.

Both Vue.js and React have their own set of tools and libraries to help developers build and maintain their applications. Vue.js has Vue CLI and Nuxt.js, while React has Create React App and Next.js.

Nuxt.js is a free and open-source JavaScript framework based on Vue.js that helps you develop modern web applications using SSR (server-side rendering) which provides a faster load, better SEO (search engine optimization), and better caching capabilities.

We made a LiveChat Next.js App template. Using Next.js as a foundation for the project, we have a front-end app with built-in routing, Server Side Rendering (SSR), and Server Side Generation (SSG) built with React, but on top of that, ready-to-use API routes built in the form of Serverless functions. If you prefer Vue.js or Svelte, you can choose similar frameworks, like Nuxt.js and SvelteKit.

Not oc, but maybe give Nuxt a look?

Vue's docs are some of the best I've ever read. Nuxt and Craft are pretty great too. I especially like how Craft's docs are bifurcated into the docs which give you the 20/80 + code snippets, and the class reference, which is complete documentation of every method, type, param, etc of the platform.

Nuxt - the Vue alternative to NextJS - supports both static site generation and SSR.

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...).