3 ms·
Would be cool to benchmark this. Me with HAML/SASS vs. you guys with HTML/CSS. Points given for implmentation time and output validity and semantic quality. A f
by grimen 15y ago
Would be cool to benchmark this. Me with HAML/SASS vs. you guys with HTML/CSS. Points given for implmentation time and output validity and semantic quality. A few years ago Ruby was syntetic sugar, later Rails, later HAML/SASS. Give me a break.
- edw 15y ago1. It was the Java people who pooh-poohed Rails. The rest of us just got to work cloning it, sans any issues we had with it, in our favorite languages. I haven't seriously programmed in Java for almost ten years. 2. Syntactic sugar isn't just hand-waving; it has a reasonably-concrete definition. And it's generally considered acceptable if it delivers enough convenience (The concept of enough, you will find, is highly subjective.) 3. No one in this exchange has busted on the utility of SASS, so I don't understand why you'd deny anyone a SASS-like tool in a cage match nerd bake-off. For that matter, no one has busted on the practical utility of HAML in this exchange, just on the absence of new concepts i.e. powers of abstraction.
- grimen 15y ago1. The pointer was "many developers was hating on it" - I didn't say everytime it is the same people. You kow that, this bullet was just waste of characters really. 2. Reference me the official definition. Another point that didn't add anything to the discussion. 3. SASS been heavily hatred on in the past, Google it. Practical utility: Inofficially 80% of Rails/Sinatra developers use HAML - why? Because it makes people productive.