4 ms·

Sass offers solutions for some CSS shortcomings: lack of variables, mixins, terse nesting and like. And easy modularization as a bonus. You can have all that wi

Sass offers solutions for some CSS shortcomings: lack of variables, mixins, terse nesting and like. And easy modularization as a bonus. You can have all that with regular CSS syntax (SCSS). HAML offers… well, just different syntax. So I see very good reasons for using SASS and see no reasons to use HAML. Or maybe that's just 15 years I've been writing HTML.

cheald 16y ago
I resisted Haml for a long time for much the same reason. I then ended up using it for XML views (rather than builder, which is rather slow) and was rapidly hooked. I don't think I would ever go back to writing raw (X|HT)ML given the choice.
grimen 16y ago
Don't forget the people than need to clean up the typos from the non-syntetic-sugar - aka "keep it native" - guys, and pay the salaries for work that takes 3 times longer just becuase of some weird principles. The best thing with this is that it's optional, and if you get into a project with HAML/SASS you can convert 1:1 back and forth so...not a big deal.
- rimantas 16y ago
  Don't forget the people than need to clean up the typos from the non-syntetic-sugar - aka "keep it native" - guys HAML has some features which prevent from making typos when typing code? Interesting. Anyway, I am not sure what typos are you talking about. Syntax-highlighting + validation is good enough combination for me to avoid typos. Honestly, never had that problem. and pay the salaries for work that takes 3 times longer Why would it take three times longer? I do produce my HTML manually, but that does not mean I type every single character in the code by hand. Snippets, Zen-coding/Sparkup, autocomplete, etc.—all this allows to produce HTML fast, efficiently and avoid syntax errors.
  - grimen 16y ago
    "Honestly, never had that problem." Most common problem with manually generated XML/HTML is broken tags (not closed correctly). "Why would it take three times longer?" The number 3 is just picked by me based on my own experience - I finish views way faster than the ones I've worked with, with best-pratice semantics. If you write valid semantic HTML as fast as me with no tool you are just very good, but you don't represent the majority.

cheald 16y ago

I resisted Haml for a long time for much the same reason. I then ended up using it for XML views (rather than builder, which is rather slow) and was rapidly hooked. I don't think I would ever go back to writing raw (X|HT)ML given the choice.

grimen 16y ago

Don't forget the people than need to clean up the typos from the non-syntetic-sugar - aka "keep it native" - guys, and pay the salaries for work that takes 3 times longer just becuase of some weird principles. The best thing with this is that it's optional, and if you get into a project with HAML/SASS you can convert 1:1 back and forth so...not a big deal.

rimantas 16y ago
Don't forget the people than need to clean up the typos from the non-syntetic-sugar - aka "keep it native" - guys HAML has some features which prevent from making typos when typing code? Interesting. Anyway, I am not sure what typos are you talking about. Syntax-highlighting + validation is good enough combination for me to avoid typos. Honestly, never had that problem. and pay the salaries for work that takes 3 times longer Why would it take three times longer? I do produce my HTML manually, but that does not mean I type every single character in the code by hand. Snippets, Zen-coding/Sparkup, autocomplete, etc.—all this allows to produce HTML fast, efficiently and avoid syntax errors.
- grimen 16y ago
  "Honestly, never had that problem." Most common problem with manually generated XML/HTML is broken tags (not closed correctly). "Why would it take three times longer?" The number 3 is just picked by me based on my own experience - I finish views way faster than the ones I've worked with, with best-pratice semantics. If you write valid semantic HTML as fast as me with no tool you are just very good, but you don't represent the majority.