I see it mentioned a lot. I want to start using it but it looks and sounds a bit confusing to set up.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Read next
Python beats Javascript, Next.js Leap & the AI Coding Wars
TheDev -
Creating Custom Template and Managing IP Addresses in Microsoft Azure: Dissociation and Association Explained
Oluwaloseyi Oluwatofunmi Emmanuel -
Melhorando o Desempenho da Sua Aplicação PHP com Lithe Cache
Lithe -
[WebGL2.0][Basic]scene graph
Reene -
Top comments (4)
I'm more familiar with Less but they're both CSS preprocessors, the idea being you write almost-but-not-quite-CSS with tidy nested hierarchies and so forth, which they transform into actual browser-compatible CSS for inclusion into your website.
The setup isn't too bad but it's a little strange if you're used to saving a file and seeing the results immediately on refresh. The bare minimum:
public/stylesdirectory structure in your project.sass path/to/something.sass public/styles/something.css<link rel='stylesheet' href='...' />declarations to point to the compiled output inpublic/styles.Once you've got that down you can automate step 3 using anything from
maketonpm, handle multiple source files (Less version:mkdir -p public/styles && find assets/styles -name *.less -exec lessc {} \\; > public/styles/site.css), and use something like nodemon or chokidar to watch files for changes and rebuild without manual intervention.Thanks! It's the automation process with Gulp that had me confused the most before.
I've built some fairly complex workflows with Grunt and Gulp in the past but at this point I think the only compelling reason to go back would be if you absolutely have to build on Windows as well as *nix. Otherwise they don't bring anything you don't already have with
scriptsin package.json and maybe a directory of Bash scripts to keep it manageable.I think the explanation below/above is great. However, one wrinkle to keep in mind is this. Sass started out as its own language for implementing styles. That is to say, it was not based on the CSS syntax and was read/written very differently.
When version 3 of Sass came along it was still called Sass but it became SCSS, with the corresponding .scss file extension. This version of Sass IS based on the CSS syntax and any valid CSS is also valid SCSS.
There are still people who prefer the old syntax and use that. So both exist in projects in the wild. If you're interested in learning more this is a good primer: thesassway.com/editorial/sass-vs-s....