Barney (anyone interested in the subject),
I understand you’re passionate and are familiar with the subject, so I
simply caution to brush away preprocessor-skeptic advice, and to
underestimate traditional code optimization.
CSS optimization is a complex issue. The example I gave is powerful
http://blog.millermedeiros.com/the-problem-with-css-pre-processors/
Irrelevant to the subject here, which is about the discussion of preprocessors
on this list.
Just following with one ear but why would that be irrelevant? By that
logic, if you were to buy a car and somebody warned you it
apr 27 2014 12:18 Jens O. Meiert j...@meiert.com:
Just following with one ear but why would that be irrelevant?
Read the OP.
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List
Jens, a big advantage of CSS pre-processors is that they can facilitate
management of selectors in the manner you describe. Indeed, the advantages
you cite are one of the key reasons large teams decide to adopt
pre-processors in the first place.
A terrible prejudice I have towards the
On Apr 24, 2014 11:46 AM, Andrew C. Johnston attyjohns...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Hello All:
I have been a bit busy and haven't been keeping up, how does the list
feel about discussions involving LESS, SASS and SCSS? I have a Sass project
where I have to make some changes and feel a little lost.
I didn’t get the original for this. Eric?
apr 25 2014 03:21 John Johnson j...@coffeeonmars.com:
certainly seems appropriate to me…I’d vote “yes” for the powers that be to
consider.
I’m for it as long as there is a clear connection to CSS, which there typically
is.
On Apr 25, 2014, at 1:43 AM, Philip Taylor p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Eric wrote:
I'll raise my hand and say I'm against it. Not because I have a problem with
CSS
pre-processors rather because this is a CSS list. Pre-processors are simply a
tool used to write CSS in a more
25 apr MiB digital.disc...@gmail.com:
I didn’t get the original for this. Eric?
Andrews original was found in the spam folder for unknown reasons.
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
At 06:53 AM 4/25/2014, Tom Livingston wrote:
Possible Holy War as well...
CSS pre-processors do not write optimized code by default, it is very
easy to write code that will result in bloat and reduced performance.
It didn't take much Googling to find this article:
apr 26 2014 00:36 Reese howel...@inkworkswell.com:
CSS pre-processors do not write optimized code by default, it is very
easy to write code that will result in bloat and reduced performance.
It didn't take much Googling to find this article:
Hello All:
I have been a bit busy and haven't been keeping up, how does the list feel
about discussions involving LESS, SASS and SCSS? I have a Sass project where I
have to make some changes and feel a little lost.
Not sure if I would have any specific question to ask here, but is the list
certainly seems appropriate to me…I’d vote “yes” for the powers that be to
consider.
J
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ --
I'll raise my hand and say I'm against it. Not because I have a problem with CSS
pre-processors rather because this is a CSS list. Pre-processors are simply a
tool used to write CSS in a more programmatic way and then 'compile' it CSS for
use by the UA.
I just think it would be a thick layer of
Eric wrote:
I'll raise my hand and say I'm against it. Not because I have a problem with CSS
pre-processors rather because this is a CSS list. Pre-processors are simply a
tool used to write CSS in a more programmatic way and then 'compile' it
I agree, and each is presumably different; a
14 matches
Mail list logo
