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.

[replete]

@lucasmciruzzi If are struggling with using SASS, stick to vanilla CSS.

[cyrusdavid]

@lucasmciruzzi the syntax is SASS/SCSS is so simple. Maybe it's just your refusal to learn.

[loucyx]

@replete @vohof I'm not struggling or refusing guys. In the project I'm working right now, the styles are made in SASS. My +1 in this issue is because is true that, quoting: "A LESS version of the foundation system would be amazing".

[replete]

Your +1 (and anyone else's for that matter) is pointless because:

• Zurb have acknowledged that this won't happen
• It doesn't make sense for it to happen, with libsass making SASS more accessible
• Community members have tried to maintain a LESS fork - it was unmaintainable

Can we stop flogging this dead horse already? If you want LESS so hard, just use Bootstrap.

[pelmered]

I agree that SASS probably is the better choice between the two overall even though I've been using LESS for all my projects until now. The only killer feature in LESS now is a good PHP-compiler. That is awesome when you want to recompile the styles for sites on shared hosting where you can't run a C-compiler. I have a great script for this that I have included in all the sites I've made the last few years.

Once SASS gets a PHP-compiler, it's a no-brainier for me.

[pelmered]

@replete It's only a wrapper and does not run in most shared hosting environments where you're only allowed to run PHP-code and can't install anything.

[replete]

@pelmered I realised just after I posted and deleted the comment, apologies

[ghost]

Why are we comparing SASS and LESS in first place? Shouldn't we be open about it, for sake of choice? Lets say, if someone sends a pull request to foundation with full-blown optional LESS support, would they reject it just because in their head its not a winner? That's strange, insane and some stubborn childish attitude IMVHO.

SASS is good LESS is also good! no? Ok SASS is better than LESS!

All we are asking is a CHOICE! @replete, is it so inappropriate to ask for a choice, that even the comments with (the word "LESS") are bothering you? Alexis Sellier must have eaten somebody's lunch.. :P

[replete]

@jasonwilliams200OK, If you read earlier on in the comments, I initially wanted a LESS version myself.

I'm trying to save you wasting energy in waiting around for a LESS version - It won't come from Zurb, and isn't easy to maintain either.

You can always port the features that you like to LESS, I've done that myself in the past for the responsive grid.

[pelmered]

It's just not worth the effort to maintain a LESS fork and I fully understand that that is not a priority for Zurb either.

If you want to use Foundation and Less you have to use the pre-compiled CSS in Foundation and then put your LESS on top of that. I've been doing that a lot. Your missing out on a lot of great things, but it works and it's an okay solution.

[Garito]

What do you say now that Bootstrap has a SASS version?

Perhaps Fundation is a nightmare to translate to Less becase is a piece of crap? I could undertand that Zurb hasn't any intention to maintain the port but if the community can't it is clear to me the why

Now it's your time to insult/ignore/what_ever me (I know you like wars...) :D

[blowsie]

This has got me thinking, its not long till someone will consider building a pre-processor-pre-processor.

Something which will output to less and sass. Or of course, just a less<==>sass converter.

[loucyx]

@Garito ... there is no need to "insult", LESS and SASS both have great and crappy things, so there is no point in insulting one of them.

[Garito]

@lucasmciruzzi agree! This is why I'm asking not affirming... Perhaps the team who tried was not the correct (no shame on try) This is why I'm asking for the opinions now that we can compare in terms of language portability

I like python so its a "problem" for me any options because I need to install another set of programs in my servers so more "possible" bugs and security holes (at least more chances) and the ports are not at the same level till the creators accept "the chalenge" to make em official (as Bootstrap has done in the last version)

So, since I really don't care to much about which tech is better if a balance with other of things is achieved, for me this is a kind of "race". Eventually the browser creators will decide that this field is mature enought and will include it agaist css so now its a RACE

At this point SASS has agaist itself (in my taste as a python programer) Ruby because it is to much similar to python, less mature and slower LESS wins with Node since is super different and a lot of people is trying there new cool stuff (look for Johny Five for instance) LESS BRUTALLY lost because of the huge dependency of Bootstrap The SASS ecosystem is more rich thant LESS but Bootstrap's is very rich As a programer I prefer SASS by far but I really don't care because the days of writting code to design a website (ergo any computing programs) is so close and now this libraries try to solve the front end problem and bootstrap is more accepted

At this point I use LESS In the future I will prefer not to use anyone and use directly something near to Fundation or Bootstrap because I see programs as lego pieces (a very very inmature lego) but now Ruby is a huge, huge problem so SASS has it itself

But besides my opinions you may be agree with me that LESS or a possible port of SASS to Node will be more accepted for the browser vendors as a replacement of CSS (I bet you that a lot of people here make themselve wet only thinking on that). The only way you could save that situation is by creating a C port (which I applaude)

I have written that "elaborated" response asking for mercy for my "mistake" (someone wanna bet who finally wins the race? =) ) Sorry Lucas, don't wanna insult but I would like a good competition before we all change to a new technology. It will be a more developed and chanced one which is good for all us

[bluetidepro]

Was there ever an update with this? Is there a LESS version of Foundation 5 floating around somewhere in another repo or something?

[pelmered]

@bluetidepro: No, at least not anything official. Zurb want to focus on other more important things than maintaining a Less fork of foundation.

[joshuavalentin]

+1 also for LESS!

[dgmike]

:-1:

I'm using libsass + sassc and compiling without ruby. And I'm very happy with that! Do not need ruby sass or less to write my code :smile:

[micahblu]

+1 Sass seems to be having a lot of version discrepancies and unresolved bugs lately, not too mention sass compiles much slower than less and that time lag is enough to want to switch alone.

[ghost]

Less is an imperative language and Sass is declarative language. Don't get me wrong. No matter what others think. they both will always have advantage over each other and they both are equally great languages. Its so absurd to make it a matter of competing tech and impose personal bias to rule out the great options. Open source software is nobody's property!!

Bootstrap coming with both Sass and Less variants. Its a shame that we can't get Zurb Foundation to be more pervasive and come as an independent front-end framework with no ties attached to one particular design language.

One common pattern I have observed with Ruby community is that they only like to use stuff which has any ties with Ruby! Sass was first implemented in Ruby, so that's the end of the world! Dare trying something new guys! Welcome to the era of node.js. The whole universe of tech is at your fingertips!!

@micahblu, (while I am sharing the general feeling and predicament) speaking of performance, have you tried node-sass which uses libsass written in C++? ;) Its zillion times faster than ruby version of Sass compiler, but oh well.. its not Ruby! :p

[ionas]

There should be a way to compile one into the other or a higher level language to describe both. I don't really want to switch technologies around all the time just because TWBS and Foundation are using SASS/SCSS vs LESS. At least SCSS is kind of readable and not too error prone (SASS is).

[blowsie]

I agree @ionas , this is what I said over a year ago :) https://github.com/zurb/foundation/issues/370#issuecomment-33978360

[chrisjlee]

-1 libsass > less

[loucyx]

-1 libsass > less

Unless you are on a server that only supports Javascript dependencies...... As said above, both preprocessors are good, and have advantages over the other, to say something like "x > y" is childish. SASS is more powerfull, and fast, but it has more dependencies too (ruby or libsass). LESS is more simple, intuitive (similar to vanilla CSS) and has no dependencies (it even runs on PHP, if you want), but it lacks of stuff like Compass.

Still, I think this discussion is over, the guys at zurb will not implement foundation on less, the only option we have is to use other library that does, or wait/code a SASS to LESS parser or something like that.

[ghost]

@chrisjlee, constructive comments please!

Also see What is the difference between declarative and imperative language.

And the difference between zurb-foundation and twitter-bootstrap is that the latter gives you "choice".