4 ms·

"it hasn't been done before, so it can't be done now". 25 years ago isn't 14 years ago isn't now...

• jaywalk 4y ago
  Nobody's saying it can't be done. They're simply questioning whether it should be done, since we have tools that solve this problem already. It's not giving us anything we don't already have, and so the value proposition in making the syntax more complex is pretty shaky.
  • jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Why should the tool be necessary? I'd much rather write plain CSS than use Sass, and nesting makes that significantly more readable and easier to maintain.
    • jaywalk 4y ago
      Whether the tool should or should not be necessary is an entirely different question. The reason it is necessary is because it enabled writing "CSS" in a way that it was never meant to be written. And as evidenced by the blog post and all of the discussion here, adding the functionality to browsers isn't at all straightforward. So a better question is why shouldn't the tool be necessary? It's all about writing the same CSS in a more developer-friendly way, not enabling CSS to do something it never could before (like variables and flex did). Why should browsers have to worry about this added complexity? Just write your stylesheets however you'd like, and then run a tool to compile them down to standard CSS.
    • FinalBriefing 4y ago
      When I look at these proposals, I would still prefer using Sass over regular CSS. It's syntax is just cleaner.