4 ms·

I think you made the right call. CSS isn't complex enough to need a framework. In a lot of cases, CSS frameworks abuse the primary motivating factor for trying

I think you made the right call. CSS isn't complex enough to need a framework. In a lot of cases, CSS frameworks abuse the primary motivating factor for trying to separate style and content in the first place. If I have to use particular HTML markup or class naming conventions, I may as well just forego the separation of content and style altogether and use table layouts. But less appears to make desperately needed additions that should ultimately show up in CSS itself IMHO. Certainly when I was first picking up CSS -- given my programming background -- I was reaching for the concept of variables and in fact was surprised that they did not exist in CSS. For that reason, I'd consider less to be more of a language extension than a framework.

chriseppstein 17y ago
You don't know about compass then. Go watch the screencast. CSS isn't complex, but building websites that work correctly in 8 web browsers most certainly is. Compass frameworks give you re-use without semantic fail.
- Keyframe 17y ago
  I've just started using sass/compass for a project and I can tell I am more productive than ever, though I am using 960.gs instead of blueprint with compass. I am using compass for sass/960 and staticmatic for haml - so I can output a set of html/css files which are used in my php project. I am loving it, especially since staticmatic has preview mode and compass has --watch mode - so I have both running and auto updating my preview while I work on it. Even if I didn't use haml at all and no framework (960), it would still make sense for sass variables and mixins with input variables alone. building sites that work across browsers is easier with reset+some framework, but I still have to have IE7+ specific css, and compass seems a bit moody on windows. edit: I am not sure if I would be comfortable using anything external to css to output css that has the same syntax, like less seems to have - it would most likely pollute my way of thinking down the road.
- 9oliYQjP 17y ago
  I do know about compass, but I have a feeling compass will be to less what Prototype is to jQuery, at least for me. When I first learned Prototype I thought it was awesome, but jQuery just ended up making a whole lot more sense to me. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
  - carbon8 17y ago
    What you are describing would be closer to Sass vs Less, not Compass vs Less. Compass is a meta-framework built on Sass to make working with CSS frameworks much simpler, easier, cleaner and more flexible. In your case, you don't use CSS frameworks at all, but you just want a few features that aren't in CSS, so Compass isn't what you'd be considering, Less or Sass would be.
    - chriseppstein 17y ago
      At least someone gets it ;-)
      - 9oliYQjP 17y ago
        If I don't want to use a framework like blueprint, and I actually prefer (in this context) the CSS syntax (e.g., braces et al) as opposed to HAML, then is compass still useful to me? That's what is (now) confusing to me given your replies to my original comment. My original criticism isn't of compass. It's just that if I don't like blueprint/YUI/960, then would it not be redundant to use compass? Hopefully you don't take this personally. If I ever find myself required to use one of the above frameworks, they would probably be a lot more palatable when used in conjunction with compass.

chriseppstein 17y ago

You don't know about compass then. Go watch the screencast. CSS isn't complex, but building websites that work correctly in 8 web browsers most certainly is. Compass frameworks give you re-use without semantic fail.

Keyframe 17y ago
I've just started using sass/compass for a project and I can tell I am more productive than ever, though I am using 960.gs instead of blueprint with compass. I am using compass for sass/960 and staticmatic for haml - so I can output a set of html/css files which are used in my php project. I am loving it, especially since staticmatic has preview mode and compass has --watch mode - so I have both running and auto updating my preview while I work on it. Even if I didn't use haml at all and no framework (960), it would still make sense for sass variables and mixins with input variables alone. building sites that work across browsers is easier with reset+some framework, but I still have to have IE7+ specific css, and compass seems a bit moody on windows. edit: I am not sure if I would be comfortable using anything external to css to output css that has the same syntax, like less seems to have - it would most likely pollute my way of thinking down the road.
9oliYQjP 17y ago
I do know about compass, but I have a feeling compass will be to less what Prototype is to jQuery, at least for me. When I first learned Prototype I thought it was awesome, but jQuery just ended up making a whole lot more sense to me. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
- carbon8 17y ago
  What you are describing would be closer to Sass vs Less, not Compass vs Less. Compass is a meta-framework built on Sass to make working with CSS frameworks much simpler, easier, cleaner and more flexible. In your case, you don't use CSS frameworks at all, but you just want a few features that aren't in CSS, so Compass isn't what you'd be considering, Less or Sass would be.
  - chriseppstein 17y ago
    At least someone gets it ;-)
    - 9oliYQjP 17y ago
      If I don't want to use a framework like blueprint, and I actually prefer (in this context) the CSS syntax (e.g., braces et al) as opposed to HAML, then is compass still useful to me? That's what is (now) confusing to me given your replies to my original comment. My original criticism isn't of compass. It's just that if I don't like blueprint/YUI/960, then would it not be redundant to use compass? Hopefully you don't take this personally. If I ever find myself required to use one of the above frameworks, they would probably be a lot more palatable when used in conjunction with compass.