Post

The most interesting thing about css-in-js is its critics. Most criticism of css-in-js is very shallow and essentially boils down to "that is not was I was taught". It usually comes with oversimplified statements and a touch of name calling.

Bruce Lawson@brucel.bsky.social

Brogrammers couldn't wrap their megabrains around not-a-real-language CSS, so decided to reinvent it and fight against the web platform for their own convenience. Who could possibly have predicted it would be crap for users, and would need expensive surgery to drain the festering pus?

5/10/26, 9:26 am0 reposts5 likes

@cjaythecreator.bsky.social

The funniest thing about all this is how quickly “I dislike this tradeoff” becomes “this violates nature”

Andreas Møller

@andreasmoller.dk

Most people seem to have made up their mind well before they considered the tradeoffs

Bruce Lawson

@brucel.bsky.social

Isn't the trade off "this is slower for the user" vs "this is more convenient for me"? Or is there another tradeoff?

Andreas Møller

@andreasmoller.dk

No. You are talking about a whole category. Css-in-js didn’t come about because people didn’t understand CSS. It came about because CSS has shortcomings. First generation wasn’t great. Later generations improved.

Bruce Lawson

@brucel.bsky.social

"CSS has shortcomings". What is it that can't be achieved in CSS?

Andreas Møller

@andreasmoller.dk

That is not to say there aren't valid criticisms of css-in-js solutions. There definitely is. Performance is a key one. But that is a criticism of individual libraries, not the concept in general.

Rasmus Schultz

@mindplay.dk

Linaria and others emit essentially Tailwind style utility CSS if you want them to - the design time difference is ergonomics (writing real inline CSS) and the output is plain HTML & utility CSS or they emit plain old classes - my preference since it can load, deploy and update incrementally 🙂