>I look a look at the sass-vs-less link, and I really don't see the draw of either. Don't look at them, use then, and you'll see. >I don't want a turing-compl

>I look a look at the sass-vs-less link, and I really don't see the draw of either. Don't look at them, use then, and you'll see. >I don't want a turing-complete language in my css. Simple variable expansion will suffice--basically just syntactic sugar. And they are mostly that --simple variable expansion. But arithmetic is also handy, e.g .sidebar { width: @page_width - @content_width } That said, they are not turing-complete as far as I know. >I don't want yet another game of "find the definition" buried under a hierarchy of indirection. You never get that. You only have to look at the LESS or SASS file, never the generated CSS. And you can mentally map what you see in the browser's CSS inspector with the relevant LESS/SASS rule trivially. It's nothing like Coffeescript in this regard, where you (sometimes) have to hunt to see the original error.