Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stepping Away from Sass

cathydutton.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–157 of 157 posts

Re: Stepping Away from Sass

#151

Post by sureaboutthis »

goddtriffin wrote: post #150
sureaboutthis wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is, one need not apply an adjective to something that does not need qualifying. Just like "vanilla" JavaScript. You are either using JavaScript or you're not but people have been doing that for years and now I see posts asking for definitions or differences between "vanilla" and other flavors of js. Terminology is important but I see it's not important among some people and other hobbyists online.

I can't speak for the others, but when I use the terms 'vanilla JavaScript' and 'vanilla CSS', the distinction I'm trying to make is that I'm not using any libraries or frameworks. There is a meme within the community about 'vanilla JavaScript' called VanillaJS: http://vanilla-js.com/ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20435653/what-is-vanilla...

Saying I'm using JavaScript is sufficient. Or stating "I'm not using any libraries or frameworks" works, too.

Re: Stepping Away from Sass

#152

Post by rhizome »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #149
rhizome wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what I mean, Sheldon.

My point is, one need not apply an adjective to something that does not need qualifying. Just like "vanilla" JavaScript. You are either using JavaScript or you're not but people have been doing that for years and now I see posts asking for definitions or differences between "vanilla" and other flavors of js. Terminology is important but I see it's not important among some people and other hobbyists online.

I don't care if you didn't need it, because it's helpful for clarity regardless.

https://stackoverflow.com/a/40115909/135845

Unfortunately, I see that "The Ubuntu Web Team" decided to shit the bed and steal the name for the CSS framework they created. So fsck me I guess.

Re: Stepping Away from Sass

#153

Post by mercer »

wutwut5521 wrote: post #132
marcus_holmes wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just got this working with fswatch and sassc, thought I'd feed back that this is perfect, thanks :)

Heh, I just woke up and read this and thought “well thats enough problem solving for today” :) Glad we could help you avoid the hell that is adding npm to a non-node project!

Another thank you from here! I've had to use node just for sass in the past and this is a much nicer solution.

Re: Stepping Away from Sass

#154

Post by mercer »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #151
goddtriffin wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for the others, but when I use the terms 'vanilla JavaScript' and 'vanilla CSS', the distinction I'm trying to make is that I'm not using any libraries or frameworks. There is a meme within the community about 'vanilla JavaScript' called VanillaJS: http://vanilla-js.com/ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20435653/what-is-vanilla...

Saying I'm using JavaScript is sufficient. Or stating "I'm not using any libraries or frameworks" works, too.

This is a weird thing to argue about.

The overwhelming majority of front-end projects and developers that I encounter use some kind of library, framework, or compilation/build tool. It's common enough to basically be the default.

If you use 'plain' or 'vanilla' javascript (or CSS), you're doing something less common, at the very least around these parts, and so qualifying this makes sense. The mere fact that many people clearly seem to feel a need to point this out makes it so. Why would they otherwise?

Judging by your comment history, the vast majority of your contributions here boil down to some kind of dig at how 'people these days' are 'doing it wrong', and how obviously you are superior to that and how you don't see the need for any of this new-fangled stuff. I'm honestly curious whether that's just role-playing, or if that kind of superiority about being older and wiser is somehow important to you.

I'd very much prefer it if you shared the wisdom you've accrued in a more constructive way, because as far as I can tell you're not actually wrong about a lot of this stuff.

Older and wiser curmudgeons have played a valuable role in my development, but your approach strikes me as self-serving and somewhat poisonous to the/any community. But of course you're free to do as you please.

Re: Stepping Away from Sass

#155

Post by jcr1488 »

justinclift wrote: post #85
marcus_holmes wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

useful, I didn't know about this. Thanks. How does the reporting of vulnerabilities work for npm? No, Golang doesn't, but then it doesn't have a registry like npm in the first place. Gophers tend not to use third-party libraries if at all possible.

> Gophers tend not to use third-party libraries if at all possible. That sounds weird to me. It's pretty rare (almost never?) for applications to do useful things without third party libraries. eg any database access, input validation, making sure HTML output isn't malicious, etc. Maybe that's just me though?

What's even more weird is making every 10 line function a "library" and the average program having 500+ dependencies. JS people are so hung up on "re-usability" that they completely miss the concept of dependency hygiene.

Re: Stepping Away from Sass

#156

Post by jcr1488 »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #151
goddtriffin wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for the others, but when I use the terms 'vanilla JavaScript' and 'vanilla CSS', the distinction I'm trying to make is that I'm not using any libraries or frameworks. There is a meme within the community about 'vanilla JavaScript' called VanillaJS: http://vanilla-js.com/ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20435653/what-is-vanilla...

Saying I'm using JavaScript is sufficient. Or stating "I'm not using any libraries or frameworks" works, too.

Are you always this cripplingly autistic?

Re: Stepping Away from Sass

#157

Post by digianarchist »

_bxg1 wrote: post #147
digianarchist wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever tried to get libsass installed on a CI server? Painful.

Nope, though you're generally supposed to use a project that uses libsass (of which there are many), not use it directly. If the issue is the binary itself, then maybe the Ruby version is what you want after all.

That's not the point. Installing via a library is actually worse. NPM will bypass proxy settings via the postinstall script.

My point is that the libsass library should be ported to WASM to ease the installation in a CI environment.

Post reply on HN