On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@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