3 ms·
Flex! fantastic. I have no opinion but am curious about why you bailed on Less and committed to Sass. If you see this, can you explain?
by Sakes 11y ago
Flex! fantastic. I have no opinion but am curious about why you bailed on Less and committed to Sass. If you see this, can you explain?
- wldcordeiro 11y agoFrom their brief description it seems like it's because Sass is more powerful and faster to compile.
- pyre 11y agoLess is simpler, and the canonical implementation (IIRC) is written in Javascript. Sass (now) has libsass which is a C/C++ library (meaning presumably faster), and has a larger feature set than Less.
- bronson 11y agoIt's definitely more readable. Some of the workarounds less forces upon your code get downright ugly.
- mdo 11y agoHappy to explain! - Sass has a larger community of developers. - Sass seems to be iterating as a tool faster than Less. - Sass is really similar to Less, so it's an easier transition to make than jumping right to PostCSS. - LibSass (the C implementation of the traditional Ruby Sass) is super fast, faster than Less in my casual tests).