Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

Happy to explain!

- Sass has a larger community of developers. - Sass seems to be iterating as a tool faster than Less. - Sass is really similar to Less, so it's an easier transition to make than jumping right to PostCSS. - LibSass (the C implementation of the traditional Ruby Sass) is super fast, faster than Less in my casual tests).

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.

It's definitely more readable. Some of the workarounds less forces upon your code get downright ugly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com