3 ms·
I'm a fan of LESS. It's great. I'm a bigger fan of SASS (and I means .sass not .scss), but that's because of the syntax. Whenever someone is evangelizing LESS
by rapind 15y ago
I'm a fan of LESS. It's great. I'm a bigger fan of SASS (and I means .sass not .scss), but that's because of the syntax.
Whenever someone is evangelizing LESS they mention how it's better because it can be compiled on the browser via javascript. However they will also often mention that you wouldn't want to do this in production (I agree) which means setting up server side compilation (run time by the server) or design time compilation (thick client / command line).
So... what's the value in browser based javascript interpretation / compilation if you shouldn't be using it in production anyways?
I would even argue it's a negative in that it could encourage the bad practice of browser compilation.
- JoelSutherland 15y agoIt's convenient -- that's the value. Our product (CMS) supports on-the-fly LESS compilation in development because it was easy to add to our existing node.js setup. We're looking to add SASS but it's not such a trivial addition. Nobody smart enough to use LESS is dumb enough to compile in the browser on a production site.
- rapind 15y agoSince you're using Node I assume you're compiling on the server and not the browser anyways right?
- hrabago 15y agoIt's a development tool. I didn't dive into LESS because I didn't want to deal with the compilation step during development. Finding out that it can be compiled by JS solves that problem.
- samgro 15y agoI don't see why development compilation is such a problem. I run sass --watch and forget about it.