This is not sAss library. This is sCss.

[askucher]

Where I can find sAss library because sCss has ugly syntax?

[andrew]

Duplicate of #154

The language is called Sass (http://sass-lang.com/) and has two different formats, and libsass only supports scss at the moment but may support the old nested style in the future but we won't be changing the name.

[askucher]

are you going to implement real sass?

[andrew]

Node-sass is a wrapper around libsass, if this issue (sass/libsass#16) is implemented then node-sass will support the indented Sass syntax.

[bwilkins]

@askucher - The short answer to your question is no, node-sass is not going to implement "real sass". As node-sass is only implemented as a wrapper around libsass, a C++ implementation of sass (and yes, it's only actually an implementation of scss), we are beholden to their whims.

I'm not entirely certain that libsass will get to supporting the indented sass syntax, simply because it's not the primary syntax for the official sass libraries... Also, I believe it becomes more difficult to support in the same parser as scss. I'm sure I remember seeing something about support being dropped for sass in the official libs somewhere, but I can't find it at all now, so I might have been dreaming.

If you want to find another node library that supports the indented syntax (SASS), then you should have a look on npm ( https://npmjs.org/search?q=sass )

---

This thread highlights something else I've noticed, thought. As contributors to node-sass we definitely have a bit of a communication problem with our users, who are sometimes designers (as opposed to someone with a good understanding of C++/node programming). I don't think that we are very good at conveying our reliance on this other project, libsass. We inherently understand it, and when a question comes up, it's our excuse - we just have to say "we wrap around libsass, so we won't support X feature until they do", and we wash our hands with it, a done job. but some of our users don't quite understand what we're saying by it, and get left dazed and confused.

I don't have the answer to this problem necessarily, except that we may need to be more patient and less abrasive with our users who may not understand the binding to another library as acutely as we do.

[askucher]

Thx. for clear explanation.

Let's wait little bit. Time will show.

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Brett Wilkins [email protected]:

@askucher https://github.com/askucher - The short answer to your
question is no, node-sass is not going to implement "real sass". As
node-sass is only implemented as a wrapper around libsass, a C++
implementation of sass (and yes, it's only actually an implementation of
scss), we are beholden to their whims.

I'm not entirely certain that libsass will get to supporting the indented
sass syntax, simply because it's not the primary syntax for the official
sass libraries... Also, I believe it becomes more difficult to support in
the same parser as scss. I'm sure I remember seeing something about support
being dropped for sass in the official libs somewhere, but I can't find it
at all now, so I might have been dreaming.

If you want to find another node library that supports the indented syntax
(SASS), then you should have a look on npm (

https://npmjs.org/search?q=sass )

This thread highlights something else I've noticed, thought. As
contributors to node-sass we definitely have a bit of a communication
problem with our users, who are sometimes designers (as opposed to someone
with a good understanding of C++/node programming). I don't think that we
are very good at conveying our reliance on this other project, libsass. We
inherently understand it, and when a question comes up, it's our excuse -
we just have to say "we wrap around libsass, so we won't support X feature
until they do", and we wash our hands with it, a done job. but some of our
users don't quite understand what we're saying by it, and get left dazed
and confused.

I don't have the answer to this problem necessarily, except that we may
need to be more patient and less abrasive with our users who may not
understand the binding to another library as acutely as we do.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/178#issuecomment-27527889
.

[deanmao]

You should be using sCss syntax anyway, it's the accepted one that isn't horribly broken with css. The yaml syntax is not much better over the scss syntax style and you won't be able to copy & paste css directly in there. The scss syntax is the default one in the standard ruby sass gem for a good reason. Personally, I feel like the yaml syntax should have never existed to begin with.

I should note that the ruby gem comes with command line tools that allow you to convert between either format so there's no reason that you should be using the yaml syntax.

[askucher]

It is your opinion.

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Dean Mao [email protected] wrote:

You should be using sCss syntax anyway, it's the accepted one that isn't
horribly broken with css. The yaml syntax is not much better over the scss
syntax style and you won't be able to copy & paste css directly in there.
The scss syntax is the default one in the standard ruby sass gem for a good
reason. Personally, I feel like the yaml syntax should have never existed
to begin with.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/178#issuecomment-27538300
.

[bwilkins]

@deanmao, I don't think it's fair to attack somebody's preferences like that. Many designers (including some I know personally) prefer the indented/yaml/whatever syntax, and since it's their domain, I think we should leave each other's preferences alone. This is similar to the preference of Coffeescript vs Javascript - they both end up roughly the same anyway.

I would personally prefer to use scss myself, but I am also a software developer, and I find closing brackets/'end's etc are the best way to communicate a closed scope or definition. In saying that, I still enjoy Python and Coffeescript, which are indentation-based languages.

@askucher I assume that English is a second language to you? I'm sure you didn't mean to invoke some of this anger that you have received (and I know that there's been worse). I can only suggest that you should use less "mean" or "confronting" words when asking questions. As has been obviated by this thread, there are some strong opinions in the listeners of this repository, and indeed in open source in general.

[OnkelTem]

@deanmao

I feel like the yaml syntax should have never existed to begin with.

Come on, we should speak ASM or C only! Computers laugh loudly at high-level languages which humans use!