4 ms·
we have many many more features that I could not mention in the screencast. Nothing even remotely as robust was available for node apps, and the syntax is far l
by tjholowaychuk 16y ago
we have many many more features that I could not mention in the screencast. Nothing even remotely as robust was available for node apps, and the syntax is far less verbose, however of course some people will prefer the verbose css-like syntax of less/scss.
- aaronblohowiak 16y agoWhere is the screencast?
- threepointone 16y agohttp://bit.ly/h1pDXA http://bit.ly/h1pDXA
- tjholowaychuk 16y agoAdded the link there. We wanted something similar to sass for flexibility, but there were some things obvious to me that were missing or that could be improved both as far as syntax goes and features
- chc 16y agoI'd be interested to know why you created a whole new language instead of improving on Sass. Just seemed like more fun?
- tjholowaychuk 16y agovarious reasons, we have full control over the syntax and features. Plus this is written with JavaScript, for nodejs, not Ruby.
- saurik 16y agoI'm actually serious in my curiosity: why do you care what language something is written in, as long as it work and is efficient enough for your use case? Why does it matter that these other programs were written in (I don't see why you said "for", so I'm going to use "in") Ruby? (The wish to control the syntax is fair, I'm just curious why you threw in that other reason regarding languages.)
- tjholowaychuk 16y agobecause it is beneficial to have these sorts of libraries written in the language you develop in... you dont need to install another language, you can interact with the native API instead of IPC etc...