A LESS version!

[NoiSek]

I've seen that a LESS version of the css is (possibly) in the works as of three months ago, any news on that? A LESS version of the foundation system would be amazing.

[alexbeletsky]

+1

[jtammen]

+1 :-D

[altitudems]

+2 We really need this, could be as simple as doing this: http://stackoverflow.com/a/6073820 ?

[smileyj68]

Foundation 3.0 is going to be written using SCSS/Sass, and then available as a (compass) gem in addition to the existing straight CSS version. I imagine once we have 3.0 rewritten into SCSS a Less port would be very easy to create / maintain. I know picking Sass or Less means pissing off everyone from the other camp but whaddya do?

[alexbeletsky]

Here, https://github.com/alexanderbeletsky/foundstyles/

I extracted some variables into corresponding .LESS files. You might use that, before actual support of LESS/SASS will be present in Foundation;

[NoiSek]

You are a god among men, alexander.

[jeremyricketts]

-1

Pop over here: https://github.com/cloudhead/less.js/issues/49 for a little background. But essentially, there are bugs in LESS going back 2 years, with fixes that have never been acknowledged or pulled. The bug I've linked actually shows up in the default installation of Twitter Bootstrap. At the time of this writing, there are 353 bugs and 77 unreviewed pull requests.

Anyway- LESS is a really great piece of technology. Brilliant in fact. As an open source project, I feel like it's unfortunately mismanaged. Including LESS as a dependency would be, in my opinion, a mistake. Especially when SASS is equally as strong and the support and community seems to be stronger (especially now that it's ia default in Rails).

I hope this doesn't come across as a bash or troll. I just think there's a clear, equally powerful alternative to LESS.

[DESIGNfromWITHIN]

I will try to create a LESS version soon... I plan to use it with my (Foundation based) Flexibility MODX template: https://github.com/DESIGNfromWITHIN/Flexibility

[NoiSek]

Great!

[smileyj68]

3.0-scss branch has our Sass implementation. We won't be developing a Less version, though anyone interested in forking and doing so is welcome to.

[trusktr]

+1 I'd like to see Less compatibility. Less might have bugs like @jeremyricketts mentioned, but they must not be significant because I haven't experienced any bugs and have been using Less in my last projects without any hinderance. Mybe I'm not using it's full potential. It'd be convenient for some of us not to have to switch from Less to Sass.

[srsgores]

Guys, I'm working on a LESS version for Foundation. It's not done yet, but will be within a couple days. See here.

[srsgores]

Also, you don't have to wait for me to finish: there's a php parser online.

[sjonnet19]

I am currently maintaining a LESS version that is a almost mirror of the Sass version for my company. We are planning on open sourcing just haven't had the chance to work out the details just yet.

[pelmered]

@sjonnet19 : Any update on the LESS version? I would love that!

[roroland]

+1

[sjonnet19]

I apologize for the delay in this we are in an agressive sprint that will hopefully be finished end of next week. As soon as that is over I plan to sit down and see about open sourcing our Less version.

[dgmike]

+1

[jcldavid]

:+1: using LESS is a hell lot easier.

[kadishmal]

Waiting for LESS version as well! Please, please, please!

[viperfx]

I would really like a LESS version too :)

[hpoom]

+1 would like a LESS version too

[replete]

Main reason that I'm interested in LESS version, is that for some systems (.net for instance) setting up Ruby so you can use sass/compass is an unbelievable nightmare and the ports of Ruby etc are very slow. DotLessCss is a pretty good asp.net port of LESS.

I can't see this happening to be honest, but there is definitely a use-case, and I'd love to see it.

Edit: No longer a use-case, thanks to libsass and SassC - SASS without Ruby, and faster.

[jcldavid]

I don't think this is possible.

[replete]

The only way a LESS version will happen, is if a few of us take ownership and fork Foundation, updating it with every release.

It's not inconceivable, it just needs a couple of days thrown at it.

[vrusua]

+1 would like a LESS version very much!

[berkayunal]

+1 Give us the LESS! :)

[trusktr]

@smileyj68 Is there any reason in particular to pick Sass over Less? Just curious and maybe I'll learn something.

[taitems]

+1

Using SASS in .NET environments is a bit of a turd, and in VS2012 update pack 2, LESS is now a first class language!

[jcldavid]

^ Or use vagrant.

[ilPas]

It's a pity that there isn't a version with less, I like foundation but without less I can not use it!

[vrusua]

+1 still waiting!

[sjonnet19]

Sorry guys we dropped the fork and went with SCSS. It was a nightmare to maintain and SASS features where killing us when trying to re-implement.

[blowsie]

+1

[berkayunal]

+1

Berkay UNAL www.berkayunal.com

On July 16, 2013 at 12:12:25 PM, Sam Blowes (notifications@github.com) wrote:

+1

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[loucyx]

+1 ... I love the look of foundation, but I don't like SASS at all.

[cyrusdavid]

-1.

[nerdfiles]

+1 !

[replete]

Guys, this isn't practical.

The only way this will happen, is if someone starts a LESS fork.

If you need solutions for Windows environments:

• Use .NET Bundling + BundleTransformer (+IronRuby...): http://bundletransformer.codeplex.com/
• Use a VM for real Ruby/SASS, vagrant is great for managing this kind of thing: http://www.vagrantup.com/
• Use LESS on top of 'precompiled' Foundation

Considerations:

• .NET Bundling + BundleTransformer: HASSLE to set up, slow
• VM/Vagrant: Slight learning curve, extra OS/environment to learn, FAST
• Less on top of 'precompiled' Foundation: Less control of code, fast compiling, slightly bigger deliverables

Edit: No longer a use-case, thanks to libsass and SassC - SASS without Ruby, and faster.

[ghost]

FWIW, the bug @jeremyricketts mentioned was resolved.

[quanghoc]

-10

It'd be better to start improving Foundation to be on pair with Bootstrap rather than starting to support LESS.

[jalcine]

@quanghoc Foundation surpasses Bootstrap; what?

[kevsmt]

+100000000 Please support LESS.. its a lot easier in all platform..

[replete]

Okay, the time has finally come to stop asking for a LESS version.

Introducing:

• [libsass](), a fast C implementation of Ruby SASS.
• SassC, a wrapper for libsass
• NSass, a .NET wrapper for libsass
• node-sass, a node wrapper for libsass

SASS is more feature-rich than LESS, and now it's more accessible, thanks to libsass.

LESS has been great, but lets leave it behind for SASS, which is a much better toolset.

Also, the above are reasons why a LESS version of Zurb simply isn't going to happen.

[jalcine]

@replete says it plainly. There's no reason for the Foundation team to duplicate efforts with two different preprocessors.

[kevsmt]

Its ok.. :) i found Prepros also.. it is just that, some including me, need to learn new things.. which is not bad afterall :)

[Motifsky]

-1 for LESS support. Prefer the team focused on making a great SASS version. Strongly agree with @replete.

[loucyx]

@replete I'm just saying, but node-sass still needs ruby to run. I'll check the other options, but the thing with sass is that it needs ruby to run, and LESS doesn't. Besides, more feature-rich than LESS? LESS has mixins, variables, nesting, includes/imports, etc. and the syntax is very close to the standar CSS:

/* LESS Mixin: */ .mixin-name(a_variable, another_variable: 20) { // Stuff }

.a-class { .mixin-name(10, 30); }

/* SASS Mixin: */ @mixin mixin-name($a_variable, $another_variable: 20) { // Stuff }

.a-class { @include mixin-name(10, 30); }

[replete]

@lucasmciruzzi Libsass is SASS in C, not Ruby, and it's faster. Node-sass uses libsass.

SASS is better-maintained, more actively developed, better features (@target, @extend .. the list goes on) etc.

[loucyx]

@replete OK, the last time I've worked with SASS in node, the grunt tasks asked me to install ruby in order to run the SASS compiler, I'll check that out again. But, LESS is currently in 1.5.1 (released in 2013-11-17), and I insist: The syntax in LESS is better than in SASS, that's why this request exists.

In other words: LESS is excelent for people that came from CSS, and SASS is excelent for programmers that came from other programming languages.