In what context is this "an awful amount of characters" an issue? GZip compression is fairly standard these days, and languages based on plain english (or similar languages) has a better level of compression than random text because of repetitive nature of sequences of characters.
I can't believe that mnemonic based languages are easier and more readable than something closer to a natural language. And with the assumption that code is written for humans first, computers second, what is the point of inventing a language that's less readable than the one it's trying to replace? CSS compresses particularly well, as every Atomic CSS based framework tends to point out on it's landing page!
After spending more than, say, two hours with Tailwind you'll probably read the first line much faster than second one (since there's less to read and you don't need to scroll). Humans are very good at pattern recognition, and you'll quickly read "mb" as a symbol in itself and not as "m[argin] b[ottom]".
> I can't believe that mnemonic based languages are easier and more readable than something closer to a natural language.
Well, it's worked out pretty well in mathematics. This is not about file size at all. It's about defining an "alphabet" of common concepts.
Ah, I see your issue: you do know you can have whitespace inside attributes? You don't have to clump all the class names on one line. Scanning vertically is quicker than through the horizontal line-noise of both your examples.
This also has the benefit too, that if you use version control line-based diffs to see what's changed, it will highlight the specific css class name that changed. Handy if you need to ensure that whenever you change the bottom margin, you can see at a glance whether the small prefixed one has been updated too.
On the other hand if you regularly need that many classes to style an element, perhaps it's a good place to refactor commonly occurring class names into a set, and label that set with a meaningful identifier.
As for mathematical notation, it's about as understandable to me as my understanding of Hanzi.
I agree with your sentiment. I think this is because half the programmers like mnemonics and the other half prefers English, so no matter what you do people criticize your choice. People call Java verbose and perl write-only.
I can't believe that mnemonic based languages are easier and more readable than something closer to a natural language. And with the assumption that code is written for humans first, computers second, what is the point of inventing a language that's less readable than the one it's trying to replace? CSS compresses particularly well, as every Atomic CSS based framework tends to point out on it's landing page!