I agree you can write your Sass like that and 'do both', and I'm all for writing good Sass and building up higher level abstractions for re-use where you can.

I agree you can write your Sass like that and 'do both', and I'm all for writing good Sass and building up higher level abstractions for re-use where you can. However, there's no denying the reusability of classes like 'col-xs-4', despite the knee jerk hatred of that 'non-semantic' class from some in this thread, and I maintain that if all you needed was a col-xs-4 and your team know what col-xs-4 is, then why not just stick it in your HTML. It doesn't make it less 'readable' for your team, and they're the primary audience. > You can do either one without the other, but you should be doing both. I guess I'm disagreeing you should always be doing both. Do both (create a new semantic class-name) where it makes sense. But when you already have a reusable class that does the job, and all of your team will understand, just use it.