5 ms·
To me, the pain-point with HAML has always been that it's much harder to teach our front end designers to use it instead of HTML, whereas Sass presented much le
by msbarnett 15y ago
To me, the pain-point with HAML has always been that it's much harder to teach our front end designers to use it instead of HTML, whereas Sass presented much less of a barrier for them vs Javascript.
HAML feels great for me as a dev vs the verbosity of hand-hacking HTML, but for the guys who spend 90% of their time in photoshop and 10% chopping their PSDs into static HTML to hand to me, I'm not convinced it's worth the lost productivity to teach them a new markup.
- sunchild 15y agoI'd really have to question the skills of any person who can't adapt from HTML to HAML. If you can do erb, you ought to be able to do HAML within, at most, an hour of pushing stuff through HTML2HAML. Speaking of which, HTML2HAML works nearly every time.
- rimantas 15y agoI can. I don't want to. There is zero benefits in doing that for me. SCSS on the other hand offers me that CSS does not.
- sunchild 15y agoYou aren't required to use Haml. The point is that if your front-end designers can't adapt to it, they're not trying very hard.
- msbarnett 15y agoI'd say the point is, there's no reason in having them spend any time at all adapting to it just to get right back to where we are, right now -- they churn out readable and workable markup. We're not having any problems with HTML that HAML would solve.
- rimantas 15y agoI can. I don't want to. There is zero benefits in doing that for me. SCSS on the other hand offers me that CSS does not.