5 ms·

Well lessc is just a replacement for the sass compiler so far. It lacks the project management and ruby framework integration features that you get with compass

Well lessc is just a replacement for the sass compiler so far. It lacks the project management and ruby framework integration features that you get with compass and sass.

jmtulloss 17y ago
For those of us not using Ruby frameworks, that's a definite plus. It's nice to have a simple standalone tool that does this.
- jeroen 17y ago
  Except that I doubt that anyone not using Ruby is going to install Ruby just to run this. It looks very promising, but without a standalone compiler it is useless to me.
  - carbon8 17y ago
    "Except that I doubt that anyone not using Ruby is going to install Ruby just to run this" I don't see why not. Most developers depend on tools written in a variety of languages.
    - jmtulloss 17y ago
      Agreed. I barely know Ruby, but I have Ruby installed cause so many quality tools are written in it.
- carbon8 17y ago
  You can use Compass/Sass with non-ruby projects. I do.
  - jmtulloss 17y ago
    I know, but they're not that simple, so the integration helps a lot. Less seems pretty straightforward to use as a standalone tool.
    - carbon8 17y ago
      Less looks great for a variety of use cases. Sass is also very simple and usable outside of ruby projects, Compass more so in any situation involving CSS frameworks. The sass and less commands basically do the same thing at their core: sass -h Usage: sass [options] [INPUT] [OUTPUT] lessc -h usage: lessc source [destination] [--watch] Less is definitely more lightweight and simpler in some ways (the absence of the .sass-cache), but not in ways that have anything specific to do with web framework integration. Likewise, Compass is not tied to a web framework at all. In fact, its default behavior is clearly agnostic (just images/, src/ and stylesheets/ directories and a config file). Less fills a good, important niche by being very close to CSS while adding the core features that most people long for when working with it, and I will certainly use it in some situations. But Sass and Compass are both perfectly usable in non-ruby projects. Currently I'd argue Compass is more portable than Sass, both because of certain features (its --watch option that it shares with less, but, afaik, sass itself doesn't have) and its primary function, which is making CSS frameworks much simpler and more powerful.

Well lessc is just a replacement for the sass compiler so far. It lacks the project management and ruby framework integration features that you get with compass and sass.

jmtulloss 17y ago

For those of us not using Ruby frameworks, that's a definite plus. It's nice to have a simple standalone tool that does this.

jeroen 17y ago
Except that I doubt that anyone not using Ruby is going to install Ruby just to run this. It looks very promising, but without a standalone compiler it is useless to me.
- carbon8 17y ago
  "Except that I doubt that anyone not using Ruby is going to install Ruby just to run this" I don't see why not. Most developers depend on tools written in a variety of languages.
  - jmtulloss 17y ago
    Agreed. I barely know Ruby, but I have Ruby installed cause so many quality tools are written in it.
carbon8 17y ago
You can use Compass/Sass with non-ruby projects. I do.
- jmtulloss 17y ago
  I know, but they're not that simple, so the integration helps a lot. Less seems pretty straightforward to use as a standalone tool.
  - carbon8 17y ago
    Less looks great for a variety of use cases. Sass is also very simple and usable outside of ruby projects, Compass more so in any situation involving CSS frameworks. The sass and less commands basically do the same thing at their core: sass -h Usage: sass [options] [INPUT] [OUTPUT] lessc -h usage: lessc source [destination] [--watch] Less is definitely more lightweight and simpler in some ways (the absence of the .sass-cache), but not in ways that have anything specific to do with web framework integration. Likewise, Compass is not tied to a web framework at all. In fact, its default behavior is clearly agnostic (just images/, src/ and stylesheets/ directories and a config file). Less fills a good, important niche by being very close to CSS while adding the core features that most people long for when working with it, and I will certainly use it in some situations. But Sass and Compass are both perfectly usable in non-ruby projects. Currently I'd argue Compass is more portable than Sass, both because of certain features (its --watch option that it shares with less, but, afaik, sass itself doesn't have) and its primary function, which is making CSS frameworks much simpler and more powerful.