Its never too late - I don't know how far Julien has gotten, but I've been distracted by other work, as well as trying to nail down conceptually where GSS meets ClientBundle.
For my part, SASS or LESS are a major step down from what we already have - the purpose of GWT in general is to let you write maintainable code that compiles to well-performing code, but not expose features that will perform badly (consider the lack of java.text, reflection support). The scoping feature that sass/less/compass has (allowing you to nest rules within other rules) makes for much longer selectors in the compiled out code, which equates pretty directly to worse performance (longer selectors take longer to find/track what they apply to). In contrast, Closure Stylesheets gives us the same sorts of variables, mixins, and @if syntax, but puts as much of this work on the compiler rather than adding more classes at runtime. It is a little more limited (and I'm not sure how we can even achieve things such as @def and @eval... which current CssResource has), but those limitations seem designed to provide better runtime performance. On a different note, less/sass are implemented in Ruby, not Java, so either they must be made to work in JRuby or we'd need to require an existing Ruby installation. OOCSS could be worth looking at - I don't know anything about it yet but would be interested in learning. At a glance, it *appears* to be more of a philosophy about writing html/css and a single set of starting structural css, rather than a more 'useful' css language - do I have it right? Also, just as GssResource can be added as a new ResourcePrototype type, you could just as easily create a LessResource or OocssResource with its own generator to perform the required transformations. I hang out in ##gwt on freenode, and would love to talk more about this whole task with anyone who is interested, otherwise i'd be open for a hangout to chat too. On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:24:06 AM UTC-5, Samuel Schmid wrote: > > I'm a little bit late in this discoussion, i see there is a lot of work > already on going. > But +1 for this. > SASS or LESS would be a big plus. > For me I think supporting OOCSS is more important than supporting CSS3 > without workarounds. > > Thank you guys! > Sam > > > On Friday, December 16, 2011 11:51:43 PM UTC+1, Michael Vogt wrote: >> >> Hello. >> >> > How could I refuse? :) SGTM. We will of course, still have to >> > maintain all of the GWT-isms. Actually, I've been wondering if we >> > shoudn't just adopt LESS or SASS extensions too. >> > >> Yes, please. >> >> >> Greetings, >> Michael >> >> -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
