I tried to use a framework on a web project recently, but looking at the two most popular frameworks... one of the results in every site looking the same, while the other is a step backwards to the bad old days in the worst possible ways. It was simpler to start from scratch, and I finally understood the cascade. I was actually able to drop most of the explicit class attributes, which led to a significant reduction in page size.
The primary purpose of frameworks was to work around the quirks in all the different web browsers out there, and to implement grid-like layouts before we had css grid, and to deal with the impossibility of centering a div natively. None of that is necessary these days, and hasn't been for a decade.
Atomic CSS is great. It does abuse class="" in the same way style="" was abused. It's counter-intuitive but the obvious code smells produced here are better than the non-obvious code smells created by other style architecture approaches.
I've always now-and-then packaged up and open-sourced the pattern I use for CSS. The projects have gotten smaller and smaller. This reflects well on CSS as a technology.
I think class="" has more to offer in an information density sense. There's more potential there than style="" had. Instantly lumping them together was my first response too, but I was wrong. The in-the-HTML shorthand of frameworks like Bootstrap/Tailwind/CASS is insanely useful in a way that inline styles never were.
The primary purpose of frameworks was to work around the quirks in all the different web browsers out there, and to implement grid-like layouts before we had css grid, and to deal with the impossibility of centering a div natively. None of that is necessary these days, and hasn't been for a decade.