I wish someone would read the original article about "leaky abstraction" and then use the term correctly.
The author looks more like: I heard leaky abstraction, tailwind is an abstraction, therefor it is leaky. Then shows "problems" with Tailwind (tailwind wasn't supposed to solve) that are not leaky.
Also several of the commentators here misunderstand leaky abstraction
"This is what I call a leaky abstraction. TCP attempts to provide a complete abstraction of an underlying unreliable network, but sometimes, the network leaks through the abstraction and you feel the things that the abstraction can’t quite protect you from."
The author looks more like: I heard leaky abstraction, tailwind is an abstraction, therefor it is leaky. Then shows "problems" with Tailwind (tailwind wasn't supposed to solve) that are not leaky.
Also several of the commentators here misunderstand leaky abstraction
"This is what I call a leaky abstraction. TCP attempts to provide a complete abstraction of an underlying unreliable network, but sometimes, the network leaks through the abstraction and you feel the things that the abstraction can’t quite protect you from."