Repeated strings like that should compress pretty well with gzip, which is one of the core ideas behind atomic css performance, alongside the difficulty to remove dead css – with vanilla html/css your css grows unconstrained
With atomic css, your css stays a constant size, your html will be bigger but is easier to manage as you naturally add/remove html as page content changes, plus compression should be pretty efficient.
I've had to manage legacy frontend codebases with tens of thousands of lines of mostly unused css that were not easy to remove as they might have been used somewhere, that's what led me to start using atomic css.
I don't really love tailwind, but I appreciate it has become ubiquitous so I do use it, and the ideas behind atomic css are solid when you maintain a large frontend codebase. It has also led to the rise of self-contained components as opposed to libraries (shadcn and all the others) which I couldn't be happier about.
With atomic css, your css stays a constant size, your html will be bigger but is easier to manage as you naturally add/remove html as page content changes, plus compression should be pretty efficient.
I've had to manage legacy frontend codebases with tens of thousands of lines of mostly unused css that were not easy to remove as they might have been used somewhere, that's what led me to start using atomic css.
I don't really love tailwind, but I appreciate it has become ubiquitous so I do use it, and the ideas behind atomic css are solid when you maintain a large frontend codebase. It has also led to the rise of self-contained components as opposed to libraries (shadcn and all the others) which I couldn't be happier about.