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

Bootstrap 4 alpha

blog.getbootstrap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 216 posts

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#41

Post by pyre »

jscheel wrote: post #30
o_____________o wrote: post #9

They seem pretty confident about Sass; It seems outdated and clunky to me, in part because it's always going to be the only Ruby dependency in any of my projects. The Javascript parser never found parity from what I know. By contrast, PostCSS is faster and has massive adoption. Seems like the way forward. Anybody think this is wrong? > PostCSS can do the same work as preprocessors like Sass, Less, and Stylus. But Pos…

I've been hearing a lot of noise about that. As a person who went from LESS to SCSS, is there any reason I should again switch my focus to PostCSS?

Not unless you like chasing the "latest and greatest" fad. If Sass (or Less) is working for you, then use it. If you are running into issues, then research alternatives. Both Less and Sass are actively maintained projects, so there's not reason to run around switching frameworks unless there is a concrete need for it.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#42

Post by pyre »

wldcordeiro wrote: post #31
Sakes wrote: post #28

Flex! fantastic. I have no opinion but am curious about why you bailed on Less and committed to Sass. If you see this, can you explain?

From their brief description it seems like it's because Sass is more powerful and faster to compile.

Less is simpler, and the canonical implementation (IIRC) is written in Javascript. Sass (now) has libsass which is a C/C++ library (meaning presumably faster), and has a larger feature set than Less.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#43

Post by o_____________o »

pyre wrote: post #38
o_____________o wrote: post #9

They seem pretty confident about Sass; It seems outdated and clunky to me, in part because it's always going to be the only Ruby dependency in any of my projects. The Javascript parser never found parity from what I know. By contrast, PostCSS is faster and has massive adoption. Seems like the way forward. Anybody think this is wrong? > PostCSS can do the same work as preprocessors like Sass, Less, and Stylus. But Pos…

> in part because it's always going to be the only Ruby dependency in any of my projects. The Javascript parser never found parity from what I know. Now that libsass (C or C++ implementation) has matured, the Ruby dependency is not necessary. I always resented Sass (vs. Less) a bit because of the Ruby dependency (in projects not using Ruby otherwise). Now that you can link against libsass, I don't feel like that's an…

Thanks for the overview, that was about my timeline too.

The other thing is that PostCSS just looks cleaner, extensible and more future-forward. cssnext+autoprefixer is awesome, for example. There's even a Sass-like DSL. I had been on Less for a long time, but some of its limitations bothered me.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#45

Post by jscheel »

pyre wrote: post #41
jscheel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been hearing a lot of noise about that. As a person who went from LESS to SCSS, is there any reason I should again switch my focus to PostCSS?

Not unless you like chasing the "latest and greatest" fad. If Sass (or Less) is working for you, then use it. If you are running into issues, then research alternatives. Both Less and Sass are actively maintained projects, so there's not reason to run around switching frameworks unless there is a concrete need for it.

I ran into significant issues with LESS that forced me to switch. I haven't seen any with SCSS, so that's the question. Is it just another new fad, or have people exhibited a real need for switching?

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#48

Post by DarkTree »

pyre wrote: post #41
jscheel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been hearing a lot of noise about that. As a person who went from LESS to SCSS, is there any reason I should again switch my focus to PostCSS?

Not unless you like chasing the "latest and greatest" fad. If Sass (or Less) is working for you, then use it. If you are running into issues, then research alternatives. Both Less and Sass are actively maintained projects, so there's not reason to run around switching frameworks unless there is a concrete need for it.

I wouldn't say chasing the "latest and greatest" is always the case when trying the new fads. A lot of times it comes down to 'you don't know what you don't know'. I was doing fine using regular old CSS, and then I came upon some SASS examples, and holy cow, you can make variables, mixins, and do math? I never knew that was even a thing and it certainly wasn't a problem I was having with CSS, but I am glad I found it and now use it and its luxury.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#49

Post by o_____________o »

mdo wrote: post #27
bluetidepro wrote: post #22

One amazing thing to note is that in v3.3.5 (last stable) bootstrap.min.css was at ~123kb. The new 4.0.0 alpha bootstrap.min.css is at ~88kb. WOW. That's just amazing. Congrats to everyone who worked on this project. I'm always so impressed with the work done on it! Also, I want to add, I don't care where you land on the side of the debate whether to use Bootstrap or not, there is some very smart minds behind the pro…

Thanks for noticing! :) I spent a lot of time deleting stuff lol. Still more to optimize around though as we work through the alphas.

Thanks for your work! It's amazing that I can still recommend it to people looking to quickly scaffold something beautiful.
Post reply on HN