4 ms·

None of these requires SCSS at all. You may verify by grabbing the SCSS they provide in the codepen and pasting it into http://www.sassmeister.com/ http://www.s

None of these requires SCSS at all. You may verify by grabbing the SCSS they provide in the codepen and pasting it into http://www.sassmeister.com/ http://www.sassmeister.com/ Most examples are equally compact in plain old CSS. In fact, many of them are just plain CSS displayed in a window labeled "SCSS". The places using SCSS seem like they're simply being more sane in allowing a user to change numbers trivially. Instead of saying "just change all the 400px throughout to 500px", one can change the `$slide-width` definition in one place (usually at the top). There's also the style preference of nesting to group. But neither of those make it a strict dependency. --------- EDIT: I'm not saying that I disagree with your assertion that CSS is a bad place to layer logic from a maintainability standpoint; I'm more pointing out that blaming it on SCSS makes no sense in this context.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> I'm not saying that I disagree with your assertion that CSS is a bad place to layer logic from a maintainability standpoint; I'm more pointing out that blaming it on SCSS makes no sense in this context I don't see where I blamed anything on SCSS just found it amusing the page purports to axe dependencies (JavaScript) but uses SCSS. The rest of my post is far more on topic and interesting. Everyone is focusing on my SCSS poke though, heh.
- robinson7d 10y ago
  I certainly agree that the rest of the post makes sense and is more on topic! It's why I felt the need to add the statement at the end of my own stating that I agree with it, immediately after I posted it ;) Re: requirement - there I was referring to your opening: > So let's show off what you can do without JavaScript...but also include SCSS as a dependency when the opening paragraph complains about a JavaScript dependency? Madness... And explaining that although they used SCSS, it certainly isn't a requirement, nor even much simpler than the plain CSS. I'd guess that most of the responses probably focussed on it because leading statements are often read louder than what follows them. They set the mood/tone in a way.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

> I'm not saying that I disagree with your assertion that CSS is a bad place to layer logic from a maintainability standpoint; I'm more pointing out that blaming it on SCSS makes no sense in this context I don't see where I blamed anything on SCSS just found it amusing the page purports to axe dependencies (JavaScript) but uses SCSS. The rest of my post is far more on topic and interesting. Everyone is focusing on my SCSS poke though, heh.

robinson7d 10y ago
I certainly agree that the rest of the post makes sense and is more on topic! It's why I felt the need to add the statement at the end of my own stating that I agree with it, immediately after I posted it ;) Re: requirement - there I was referring to your opening: > So let's show off what you can do without JavaScript...but also include SCSS as a dependency when the opening paragraph complains about a JavaScript dependency? Madness... And explaining that although they used SCSS, it certainly isn't a requirement, nor even much simpler than the plain CSS. I'd guess that most of the responses probably focussed on it because leading statements are often read louder than what follows them. They set the mood/tone in a way.