3 ms·

man I can't wait to not need LESS/SCSS anymore. the less I need to compile/transpile before handing stuff off to the browser, the better in my book.

irrational 4y ago
I’m looking forward to the day when we can get back to no compiling/transpiling web development.
- suprfnk 4y ago
  I'm afraid TypeScript support in browsers is very far away, if it ever happens.
  - manmal 4y ago
    JSDoc type annotations look good though, and TS can work with them: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/jsdoc-supported-types.html https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/jsdoc-supported...
  - hbn 4y ago
    There's not much of a point. It'd just slow movement on Typescript itself. Unless of course fast-moving, transpiled Typescript started being transpiled to browser-acceptable Typescript, i.e. transpiled back enough to where most browsers can parse it. But at that point, why not just do it the way we're currently doing it, targeting JavaScript? Also it'd just make web dev even more confusing for newcomers than it already is. I don't really see an issue with treating JavaScript as something of an "assembly of the browser," in that anyone can make their own language and target it.
manmal 4y ago
I guess minification is still a good idea? Or is this now irrelevant with gzip everywhere?
progx 4y ago
Yup. But currently they offer more as variables and nesting. Templates, Subroutines, etc. Value manipulation (like color changes) are possible in css, but complicated to write and read.
emsixteen 4y ago
I don't understand this viewpoint, but I've seen it a lot so you're definitely not alone. A large part of what's useful about SASS are the mixins and functions, not just nesting - do you just not use those?
- mock-possum 4y ago
  No no I do, I just don’t want to use a CSS pre processor to utilize them. I want them to be part of vanilla CSS, same as variables are now, same as nesting is now.

irrational 4y ago

I’m looking forward to the day when we can get back to no compiling/transpiling web development.

suprfnk 4y ago
I'm afraid TypeScript support in browsers is very far away, if it ever happens.
- manmal 4y ago
  JSDoc type annotations look good though, and TS can work with them: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/jsdoc-supported-types.html https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/jsdoc-supported...
- hbn 4y ago
  There's not much of a point. It'd just slow movement on Typescript itself. Unless of course fast-moving, transpiled Typescript started being transpiled to browser-acceptable Typescript, i.e. transpiled back enough to where most browsers can parse it. But at that point, why not just do it the way we're currently doing it, targeting JavaScript? Also it'd just make web dev even more confusing for newcomers than it already is. I don't really see an issue with treating JavaScript as something of an "assembly of the browser," in that anyone can make their own language and target it.

manmal 4y ago

I guess minification is still a good idea? Or is this now irrelevant with gzip everywhere?

progx 4y ago

Yup. But currently they offer more as variables and nesting. Templates, Subroutines, etc. Value manipulation (like color changes) are possible in css, but complicated to write and read.

emsixteen 4y ago

I don't understand this viewpoint, but I've seen it a lot so you're definitely not alone. A large part of what's useful about SASS are the mixins and functions, not just nesting - do you just not use those?

mock-possum 4y ago
No no I do, I just don’t want to use a CSS pre processor to utilize them. I want them to be part of vanilla CSS, same as variables are now, same as nesting is now.