I'm glad to hear that the new syntax is optional. I nearly had a
heart attack when I saw the change.
Sorry about the rant then. Keep up the good work, and I hope to
continue using SASS/Compass for a long time!
On Apr 12, 6:36 pm, Nathan Weizenbaum <nex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To add to Chris's excellent explanation, and answer your other
> question: no, Haml will not be getting a new syntax. The reason Sass
> is and Haml isn't might give you some insight into the reasons for
> this change. The point of Haml has always been to provide a nicer
> syntax for HTML, to reduce the verbosity and repetition that come with
> all those angle brackets and closing tags. When Sass was originally
> conceived, it was designed to do the same for CSS: get rid of the
> syntactic cruft, and make it quicker to write.
>
> But as Sass has grown up, it's grown out of that role and into others.
> Especially with the aid of Compass, Sass now allows you to write CSS
> not just with better syntax, but with better semantics. The use of
> mixins, variables, and the powerful features built around those in
> Sass means that it's now more than just an alternate syntax for CSS.
> It's a language that's in many ways more powerful than CSS. And for
> many people, that's a very welcome thing.
>
> So I would say that the introduction of SCSS isn't just for audience,
> at least not in the strictest sense. It's also a recognition of what
> Sass has become, and a movement to support that, even for people who
> don't like the indented syntax.
>
> Of course, as Chris said, the indented syntax as a syntactic
> improvement to CSS is still valuable for many people like you (and us
> as well: Chris and I both prefer the indented syntax for our own use).
> It will always exist, and I hope you'll continue to use and enjoy it.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Chris Eppstein <ch...@eppsteins.net> wrote:
> > I think you've misunderstood the direction of this project even though I
> > think we've been quite clear. The whitespace aware syntax is not going away.
> > (dramatic pause)
> > In Sass 3, Nathan has made the core of what Sass is a lot more technically
> > robust. This has allowed us to get rid of a number of syntactic annoyances
> > like the need to use = or #{} in the most common cases to use SassScript.
> > On top of this core, there are three parsers, one for the indentation based
> > syntax, another for the css superset syntax called scss, and one for parsing
> > css3. The way these parsers work is by translating your document into a
> > syntax agnostic representation called an AST, which can then be converted to
> > css, sass, or scss. This is also what enables the two syntaxes to completely
> > interoperate across imports.
> > You do not have to use SCSS to write your stylesheets and again, we have no
> > intention of deprecating the indentation based syntax.
> > (dramatic pause)
> > Regarding the use of $ as a variable indicator, I'm sorry that you do not
> > like this change, but it is one that is important to make and make
> > consistent across the syntaxes. The reason for this is quite simple: ! has a
> > CSS meaning already. It is a statement modifier. As such, that syntax is now
> > used to modify variable assignments: $foo: 2px !default, instead of the more
> > ruby-esque $foo ||= 2px. To goal of such changes is to lower the cognitive
> > distance between sass/scss and css -- especially for designers.
> > Now, regarding compass, I have decided to change the syntax of the files in
> > compass because I want as many people to read and understand them as
> > possible. You can import them into your project's sass files by simply
> > removing the ".sass" from the end of your imports (note: I've also converted
> > underscores to dashes in the import names as indicated by the deprecation
> > warnings in rc2). SCSS will also be the default syntax for new compass
> > projects, but a simple config setting and/or command line switch puts you
> > right back into Sass-land.
> > Now, regarding your statement that this is "just for adoption". Make no
> > mistake: that is the goal. I don't see why we would lose you as a user given
> > what I've said above, and we'll do what we can to avoid that, but if it
> > happens, it happens -- I can't make you use our code or upgrade. But allow
> > me to explain what is in it for you by growing the Sass community: There is
> > strength in numbers. We can share our code with each other, have an easier
> > time hiring, and an easier time convincing our management to let us use this
> > technology. We will learn and develop best practices by collaborating with
> > each other. So yes, I want to increase adoption because the power of sass is
> > much less about how it looks and a lot more about how the features it
> > provides changes the way we approach building design.
> > Chris
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:09 PM, NathanD <nathan.degru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not sure where to post this. Ever since learning that SASS is
> >> going to be SCSS I've become a little distraught. I've been
> >> absolutely loving SASS as a language. It's visually easy to navigate
> >> and see how CSS cascades. It's actually a lot of *fun*, I feel like
> >> I'm programming Python instead of Perl/PHP. This is a good thing.
>
> >> With SCSS, I feel like SASS taking a step backward and getting into
> >> Perl territory. CSS is already dense enough. I don't really need
> >> curly-braces, dollar marks or semi-colons. They're just visual cruft
> >> that (seem to) serve no purpose but to ease adoption by people who are
> >> already familiar with CSS. The trade-off doesn't seem like it's worth
> >> it.
>
> >> I'm wondering if the already-wonderful HAML is going to take the same
> >> steps and get into using angle brackets and 'dumb it down' so that
> >> people who know HTML will be more at home with it.
>
> >> Is all this just for greater adoption? Or is there a deeper purpose?
> >> If it's just adoption, you've lost me. I use [compass] every day to
> >> style documents at work. If SCSS becomes the default to compile
> >> against, I'll just not upgrade. It's just not worth it to me.
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Haml" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to h...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> haml+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Haml" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to h...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > haml+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to h...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to haml+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
