4 ms·

I haven't looked at this package, but it seems running the CSS through a preprocessor like m4 would achieve similar results - for those not into Ruby.

pstuart 16y ago
Noted in the comments of the article is that less is moving to JavaScript. http://github.com/cloudhead/less.js http://github.com/cloudhead/less.js
- juvenn 16y ago
  That new node-based v2.0+ implementation can be 10x faster than the ruby-based implementation. # Ruby version $ time lessc -v lessc 1.2.21 real 0m1.681s user 0m1.492s sys 0m0.176s # Node.js version $ time lss -v lessc 2.0.0 (LESS Compiler) real 0m0.104s user 0m0.088s sys 0m0.016s Though it should be noted that Rubygems has introduced a bit overhead in the Ruby version.
  - jamie_ca 16y ago
    I'm disappointed with this change - it seems like picking up the new shiny tech for the sake of new shiny tech, at the expense of usability. My mac came with ruby, but not node. Also, a 1.5-second speedup is not terribly compelling for something done rather infrequently (and if you're not caching or pre-processing to static files, you're doing it wrong).
    - sjs 16y ago
      One reason to move to JavaScript is so that you can process LESS on the server and client. This way you can serve up a static LESS file and let the user's browser parse it, cutting out the extra compilation step. But you can still compile it beforehand and serve up the CSS directly if you don't want or cannot afford the performance hit on the client. At the very least I could see myself using it in the browser for development.
    - aaronblohowiak 16y ago
      installing node on your mac takes all of 5 minutes if you already have ports installed. speed in development turnaround is important to me.
gamache 16y ago
Why do you need to be "into Ruby" to run a tool written in Ruby? LESS and Sass are both fully usable from the command line.

pstuart 16y ago

Noted in the comments of the article is that less is moving to JavaScript. http://github.com/cloudhead/less.js http://github.com/cloudhead/less.js

juvenn 16y ago
That new node-based v2.0+ implementation can be 10x faster than the ruby-based implementation. # Ruby version $ time lessc -v lessc 1.2.21 real 0m1.681s user 0m1.492s sys 0m0.176s # Node.js version $ time lss -v lessc 2.0.0 (LESS Compiler) real 0m0.104s user 0m0.088s sys 0m0.016s Though it should be noted that Rubygems has introduced a bit overhead in the Ruby version.
- jamie_ca 16y ago
  I'm disappointed with this change - it seems like picking up the new shiny tech for the sake of new shiny tech, at the expense of usability. My mac came with ruby, but not node. Also, a 1.5-second speedup is not terribly compelling for something done rather infrequently (and if you're not caching or pre-processing to static files, you're doing it wrong).
  - sjs 16y ago
    One reason to move to JavaScript is so that you can process LESS on the server and client. This way you can serve up a static LESS file and let the user's browser parse it, cutting out the extra compilation step. But you can still compile it beforehand and serve up the CSS directly if you don't want or cannot afford the performance hit on the client. At the very least I could see myself using it in the browser for development.
  - aaronblohowiak 16y ago
    installing node on your mac takes all of 5 minutes if you already have ports installed. speed in development turnaround is important to me.

gamache 16y ago

Why do you need to be "into Ruby" to run a tool written in Ruby? LESS and Sass are both fully usable from the command line.