5 ms·

I prefer LESS over SASS, simply because of how often I use mixins and how nice ".border-radius(5px)" is compared to "@include border-radius(5px)". That being s

I prefer LESS over SASS, simply because of how often I use mixins and how nice ".border-radius(5px)" is compared to "@include border-radius(5px)". That being said, my current setup is Stylus+Nib. (And for the above examples, you'd just write "border-radius: 5px" and it takes care of everything. Much more flexible.)

STRML 13y ago
Actually, in SASS, border-radius is done with the syntax `+border-radius(5px)`. You're thinking of SCSS, which is much more verbose but has more similar syntax to CSS.
- gkoberger 13y ago
  Ah, good point. Yes, I use SCSS (although SASS is a closer comparison to Stylus).
emn13 13y ago
there is such a thing as plain border-radius: 5px, you know? I think mixin's are generally overused; having to maintain css as well as right it, I'm quite happy with a syntax that doesn't encourage their use. If you need em: fine, but the you won't care about @include vs. "." anyhow.
- untog 13y ago
  As I'm sure you well know, a mixing includes vendor specific prefixes. And the whole point of mixins is to make it easier to maintain. Once they're written, you don't need to worry.
  - timdorr 13y ago
    The percentage of browsers that still require these prefixes are miniscule. I've been using border-radius, box-shadow, box-sizing, and others without prefixes for a while now without issue. Check caniuse.com for their status and you'll find vendor prefixes are dropping like flies.
  - ChiperSoft 13y ago
    Unless you're supporting Firefox 3.5 for some weird reason, you haven't needed vendor prefixes for almost two years.
    - jm3 13y ago
      That's great news if it's true. Happen to have a link or citation backing that up??
      - ChiperSoft 13y ago
        http://css-tricks.com/do-we-need-box-shadow-prefixes/ http://css-tricks.com/do-we-need-box-shadow-prefixes/
    - TylerE 13y ago
      Some of us do. On our intranet will have lots of people on PPC Macs.
      - ChiperSoft 13y ago
        Then you may be interested in this: http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/ http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/

STRML 13y ago

Actually, in SASS, border-radius is done with the syntax `+border-radius(5px)`. You're thinking of SCSS, which is much more verbose but has more similar syntax to CSS.

gkoberger 13y ago
Ah, good point. Yes, I use SCSS (although SASS is a closer comparison to Stylus).

emn13 13y ago

there is such a thing as plain border-radius: 5px, you know? I think mixin's are generally overused; having to maintain css as well as right it, I'm quite happy with a syntax that doesn't encourage their use. If you need em: fine, but the you won't care about @include vs. "." anyhow.

untog 13y ago
As I'm sure you well know, a mixing includes vendor specific prefixes. And the whole point of mixins is to make it easier to maintain. Once they're written, you don't need to worry.
- timdorr 13y ago
  The percentage of browsers that still require these prefixes are miniscule. I've been using border-radius, box-shadow, box-sizing, and others without prefixes for a while now without issue. Check caniuse.com for their status and you'll find vendor prefixes are dropping like flies.
- ChiperSoft 13y ago
  Unless you're supporting Firefox 3.5 for some weird reason, you haven't needed vendor prefixes for almost two years.
  - jm3 13y ago
    That's great news if it's true. Happen to have a link or citation backing that up??
    - ChiperSoft 13y ago
      http://css-tricks.com/do-we-need-box-shadow-prefixes/ http://css-tricks.com/do-we-need-box-shadow-prefixes/
  - TylerE 13y ago
    Some of us do. On our intranet will have lots of people on PPC Macs.
    - ChiperSoft 13y ago
      Then you may be interested in this: http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/ http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/