3 ms·

I agree that it's not really worth it, but the answer is not to choose a worse option. The answer is the just not implement it. These options are bad, and CSS

• alwillis 4y ago
  > These options are bad, and CSS does not need this. 1. You don't have to use it if it doesn't seem useful to you. 2. Many developers (me included) use Sass and other preprocessors so they can use nesting; it's probably the single most popular feature of Sass. 3. CSS doesn't need nesting but a lot of developers want it, as it improves the developer experience for writing complex selectors.
  • Gigachad 4y ago
    The group in 3 can use SASS. At this point you should view CSS like assembly, convenience functions go at a higher level.
    • alwillis 4y ago
      > At this point you should view CSS like assembly, convenience functions go at a higher level. CSS isn't assembly; it's higher level than that. I get why some want to treat it like a low-level language but it's not that, which is pretty obvious if developers take the time to understand CSS at a deeper level than just something a preprocessor spits out. Also, CSS has to work in environments where using a preprocessor isn't an option—it's not just for glossy VC-backed websites. A preprocessor and all of the other tooling front-end developers use aren't an option for the vast majority of content management systems and wikis for example. CSS still has to work in these environments.
    • barnabee 4y ago
      I hope web standards decisions are never made starting from the assumption that there's a build tool.
  • Beltalowda 4y ago
    > 1. You don't have to use it if it doesn't seem useful to you. Other people will use it and chances are you will have to deal with it sooner or later at $dayjob or whatnot.