So far, most of the responses are pretty underwhelming. It's like that exercise middle school teachers sometimes do. They had out a worksheet where the directi

So far, most of the responses are pretty underwhelming. It's like that exercise middle school teachers sometimes do. They had out a worksheet where the directions tells the students to put their pencil down and do nothing. The rest of the worksheet is a series of questions or whatever. 80% of the students don't read the directions and start filling out the worksheet while the 20% who did read them are just sitting there. That's what the feedback to an official CSS Working Group question has been like so far—people responding without having read the article; otherwise, they would know that… 1. Because of the way browsers work, the Sass syntax isn't an option—full stop. The person who implemented Chromium's nesting support explains in the thread [1] why Sass's syntax is not an option. IMHO trying to revive a discussion about wanting the Sass syntax at this point is unproductive to say the least. I've been using Sass and Stylus pretty much exclusively for a bunch of years—I get it. But that ship has sailed a long time ago, so let's not spend a lot of time on something that's not going to happen. 2. Perhaps before you respond, you should get up to speed on the issues at hand? There are links in the article you may want to read before you respond. 3. Here's what's arguably the most important thing to consider: Which is best for the future of CSS? When people write CSS thirty years from now — long after today’s habits and expectations are completely forgotten, when future generations have never heard of Sass — which option will make writing this language easy and elegant? This requires thinking beyond your personal preferences or what you and your team have been doing for the past 10 years. It's about what's best the future of CSS for the long term. We weren't writing Sass 20 years ago (Sass made its appearance in 2006) and we won't be writing Sass 20 years from now [2]. If you think about it, nesting is one of the top reasons why devs use Sass today; once CSS nesting is enabled in all three browser engines, a lot of devs won't feel the need to keep using Sass for every project. I know there are other features and workflows that Sass/Less/Stylus enable but as far as authoring stylesheets goes, nesting is huge. This isn't like the old days when it took years before you could use new CSS in production—Chrome already has an implementation (I've used it) and once there's agreement on the syntax, I can't see why Apple, Google and Mozilla wouldn't be able to ship it Q1 2023. So think about what's best for CSS and the web based on where things are headed—this isn't about you. Okay, it's not entirely about you and your team; but it's mostly about us— current and future web developers. We're going to need to live with this choice for many years to come. Let's not screw this up. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34007053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34007053 [2]: To be pedantic for a second (this is Hacker News after all ;-)), yes, someone will have to work on some legacy codebase 20 years from now that has thousands of lines of Sass… I get that. But we're getting close to a point in time where the vast majority of new web projects will not need to use Sass.