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.