I can't agree with the first. Most of the arguments from the quoted post are the result of bad practice with preprocessing, not preprocessing itself. For exampl

I can't agree with the first. Most of the arguments from the quoted post are the result of bad practice with preprocessing, not preprocessing itself. For example, the "Dumb code duplication is dumb" example is just someone writing things badly. It should have been written as: .error-default, .error-special { @include error; } .error-special { background-color: #fcc; } Similar arguments can be made for most of the other points. The nesting part for example seems to imply that you'd write in LESS/SASS etc, then maintain the post-processed CSS - whereas obviously you'd be maintaining the pre-processed files. Not convinced, personally. Disclosure: I actively develop a CSS framework built explicitly around the functionality of preprocessors.