On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Dan Andreescu <dandree...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> - Has http://learnboost.github.io/stylus/ been considered? I've heard that >> it's a good compromise between sass and less (but I haven't played with it >> myself to see if it really lets you do more compass-like things). >> > > *Popularity* - does matter; one of the long comment threads on the RFC is > from a potential contributor who is concerned that LESS makes it harder to > contribute. I mostly agree with Jon's and Steven's arguments that LESS is > pretty easy to learn. However, I have also heard about a year's worth of > complaints about Limn being written in Coco instead of pure Javascript. I > personally think CSS -> LESS is just as mentally taxing as Javascript -> > Coco, but I'm objectively in the minority based on the feedback I've > received. I'd be cautious here. You can upcompile CSS into LESS, sure, > but if a contributor has to understand a complex LESS codebase full of > mixins and abstractions while debugging the generated CSS in the browser, > they're right to point out that this requires effort. And this is effort > is only increased for more elegant languages like Stylus. >
I'm for any compiled-to-css language because I feel they fill a big gaping hole in css's ability to share code. That is really compelling to me. I haven't been convinced the compiled-to-js languages offer quite as compelling a value proposition so the analogy to Limn and Coco is less relevant to me. I admit I could be wrong about the value proposition thing but that is how I feel. I really don't want to start a language war though. I'm a Sass fan but I'll take whatever I can get. I will point out that CSS is valid LESS which could assuage some fears. Nik Everett _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
