New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
A LESS version! #370
Comments
+1 |
+1 :-D |
+2 We really need this, could be as simple as doing this: http://stackoverflow.com/a/6073820 ? |
Foundation 3.0 is going to be written using SCSS/Sass, and then available as a (compass) gem in addition to the existing straight CSS version. I imagine once we have 3.0 rewritten into SCSS a Less port would be very easy to create / maintain. I know picking Sass or Less means pissing off everyone from the other camp but whaddya do? |
Here, https://github.com/alexanderbeletsky/foundstyles/ I extracted some variables into corresponding .LESS files. You might use that, before actual support of LESS/SASS will be present in Foundation; |
You are a god among men, alexander. |
-1 Pop over here: less/less.js#49 for a little background. But essentially, there are bugs in LESS going back 2 years, with fixes that have never been acknowledged or pulled. The bug I've linked actually shows up in the default installation of Twitter Bootstrap. At the time of this writing, there are 353 bugs and 77 unreviewed pull requests. Anyway- LESS is a really great piece of technology. Brilliant in fact. As an open source project, I feel like it's unfortunately mismanaged. Including LESS as a dependency would be, in my opinion, a mistake. Especially when SASS is equally as strong and the support and community seems to be stronger (especially now that it's ia default in Rails). I hope this doesn't come across as a bash or troll. I just think there's a clear, equally powerful alternative to LESS. |
I will try to create a LESS version soon... |
Great! |
3.0-scss branch has our Sass implementation. We won't be developing a Less version, though anyone interested in forking and doing so is welcome to. |
+1 I'd like to see Less compatibility. Less might have bugs like @jeremyricketts mentioned, but they must not be significant because I haven't experienced any bugs and have been using Less in my last projects without any hinderance. Mybe I'm not using it's full potential. It'd be convenient for some of us not to have to switch from Less to Sass. |
Guys, I'm working on a LESS version for Foundation. It's not done yet, but will be within a couple days. See here. |
Also, you don't have to wait for me to finish: there's a php parser online. |
I am currently maintaining a LESS version that is a almost mirror of the Sass version for my company. We are planning on open sourcing just haven't had the chance to work out the details just yet. |
@sjonnet19 : Any update on the LESS version? I would love that! |
+1 |
I apologize for the delay in this we are in an agressive sprint that will hopefully be finished end of next week. As soon as that is over I plan to sit down and see about open sourcing our Less version. |
+1 |
👍 using LESS is a hell lot easier. |
Waiting for LESS version as well! Please, please, please! |
I would really like a LESS version too :) |
+1 would like a LESS version too |
Edit: No longer a use-case, thanks to libsass and SassC - SASS without Ruby, and faster. |
I don't think this is possible. |
The only way a LESS version will happen, is if a few of us take ownership and fork Foundation, updating it with every release. It's not inconceivable, it just needs a couple of days thrown at it. |
+1 would like a LESS version very much! |
+1 Give us the LESS! :) |
@smileyj68 Is there any reason in particular to pick Sass over Less? Just curious and maybe I'll learn something. |
+1 Using SASS in .NET environments is a bit of a turd, and in VS2012 update pack 2, LESS is now a first class language! |
@lucasmciruzzi Libsass is SASS in C, not Ruby, and it's faster. Node-sass uses libsass. SASS is better-maintained, more actively developed, better features (@target, @extend .. the list goes on) etc. |
@replete OK, the last time I've worked with SASS in node, the grunt tasks asked me to install ruby in order to run the SASS compiler, I'll check that out again. But, LESS is currently in 1.5.1 (released in 2013-11-17), and I insist: The syntax in LESS is better than in SASS, that's why this request exists. In other words: LESS is excelent for people that came from CSS, and SASS is excelent for programmers that came from other programming languages. |
@lucasmciruzzi If are struggling with using SASS, stick to vanilla CSS. |
@lucasmciruzzi the syntax is SASS/SCSS is so simple. Maybe it's just your refusal to learn. |
Your +1 (and anyone else's for that matter) is pointless because:
Can we stop flogging this dead horse already? If you want LESS so hard, just use Bootstrap. |
I agree that SASS probably is the better choice between the two overall even though I've been using LESS for all my projects until now. The only killer feature in LESS now is a good PHP-compiler. That is awesome when you want to recompile the styles for sites on shared hosting where you can't run a C-compiler. I have a great script for this that I have included in all the sites I've made the last few years. Once SASS gets a PHP-compiler, it's a no-brainier for me. |
@replete It's only a wrapper and does not run in most shared hosting environments where you're only allowed to run PHP-code and can't install anything. |
@pelmered I realised just after I posted and deleted the comment, apologies |
Why are we comparing SASS and LESS in first place? Shouldn't we be open about it, for sake of choice? Lets say, if someone sends a pull request to foundation with full-blown optional LESS support, would they reject it just because in their head its not a winner? That's strange, insane and some stubborn childish attitude IMVHO. SASS is good LESS is also good! no? Ok SASS is better than LESS! All we are asking is a CHOICE! @replete, is it so inappropriate to ask for a choice, that even the comments with (the word "LESS") are bothering you? Alexis Sellier must have eaten somebody's lunch.. :P |
@jasonwilliams200OK, If you read earlier on in the comments, I initially wanted a LESS version myself. I'm trying to save you wasting energy in waiting around for a LESS version - It won't come from Zurb, and isn't easy to maintain either. You can always port the features that you like to LESS, I've done that myself in the past for the responsive grid. |
It's just not worth the effort to maintain a LESS fork and I fully understand that that is not a priority for Zurb either. If you want to use Foundation and Less you have to use the pre-compiled CSS in Foundation and then put your LESS on top of that. I've been doing that a lot. Your missing out on a lot of great things, but it works and it's an okay solution. |
What do you say now that Bootstrap has a SASS version? Perhaps Fundation is a nightmare to translate to Less becase is a piece of crap? Now it's your time to insult/ignore/what_ever me (I know you like wars...) :D |
This has got me thinking, its not long till someone will consider building a pre-processor-pre-processor. Something which will output to |
@Garito ... there is no need to "insult", LESS and SASS both have great and crappy things, so there is no point in insulting one of them. |
@lucasmciruzzi agree! This is why I'm asking not affirming... I like python so its a "problem" for me any options because I need to install another set of programs in my servers so more "possible" bugs and security holes (at least more chances) and the ports are not at the same level till the creators accept "the chalenge" to make em official (as Bootstrap has done in the last version) So, since I really don't care to much about which tech is better if a balance with other of things is achieved, for me this is a kind of "race". Eventually the browser creators will decide that this field is mature enought and will include it agaist css so now its a RACE At this point SASS has agaist itself (in my taste as a python programer) Ruby because it is to much similar to python, less mature and slower At this point I use LESS But besides my opinions you may be agree with me that LESS or a possible port of SASS to Node will be more accepted for the browser vendors as a replacement of CSS (I bet you that a lot of people here make themselve wet only thinking on that). The only way you could save that situation is by creating a C port (which I applaude) I have written that "elaborated" response asking for mercy for my "mistake" (someone wanna bet who finally wins the race? =) ) |
Was there ever an update with this? Is there a LESS version of Foundation 5 floating around somewhere in another repo or something? |
@bluetidepro: No, at least not anything official. Zurb want to focus on other more important things than maintaining a Less fork of foundation. |
+1 also for LESS! |
👎 I'm using |
+1 Sass seems to be having a lot of version discrepancies and unresolved bugs lately, not too mention sass compiles much slower than less and that time lag is enough to want to switch alone. |
Less is an imperative language and Sass is declarative language. Don't get me wrong. No matter what others think. they both will always have advantage over each other and they both are equally great languages. Its so absurd to make it a matter of competing tech and impose personal bias to rule out the great options. Open source software is nobody's property!! Bootstrap coming with both Sass and Less variants. Its a shame that we can't get Zurb Foundation to be more pervasive and come as an independent front-end framework with no ties attached to one particular design language. One common pattern I have observed with Ruby community is that they only like to use stuff which has any ties with Ruby! Sass was first implemented in Ruby, so that's the end of the world! @micahblu, (while I am sharing the general feeling and predicament) speaking of performance, have you tried node-sass which uses libsass written in C++? ;) Its zillion times faster than ruby version of Sass compiler, but oh well.. its not Ruby! :p |
There should be a way to compile one into the other or a higher level language to describe both. |
I agree @ionas , this is what I said over a year ago :) |
-1 libsass > less |
Unless you are on a server that only supports Javascript dependencies...... As said above, both preprocessors are good, and have advantages over the other, to say something like "x > y" is childish. SASS is more powerfull, and fast, but it has more dependencies too (ruby or libsass). LESS is more simple, intuitive (similar to vanilla CSS) and has no dependencies (it even runs on PHP, if you want), but it lacks of stuff like Compass. Still, I think this discussion is over, the guys at zurb will not implement foundation on less, the only option we have is to use other library that does, or wait/code a SASS to LESS parser or something like that. |
@chrisjlee, constructive comments please! Also see What is the difference between declarative and imperative language. And the difference between zurb-foundation and twitter-bootstrap is that the latter gives you "choice". |
I've seen that a LESS version of the css is (possibly) in the works as of three months ago, any news on that? A LESS version of the foundation system would be amazing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: