Also, if you find yourself discussing pre-processors and post-processors back and forth, feel free to generally refer to them as CSS processors. But what if we could kill two birds with one stone? Furthermore, if there’s a program that can pre-process as well as post-process CSS, do we call it a Pre-Post-Processor? That’s too many syllables! Since they can process on both sides of the CSS workflow, they are referred to as CSS processors. So, we have pre-processors on one side and post-processors on the other.
#Css procssor update#
It’s a productivity booster because it will automatically update the CSS to modern standards and refurbish the CSS according to the functionality used. Like their pre-processing counterparts, post-processors eliminate the need for repetitive code. Post-processors will manipulate CSS to your liking, such as running experimental CSS4 behaviors. This makes it possible for the CSS to always be maintained to current browser requirements. Prefixes for newer CSS3 properties are automatically appended during post-processing.
#Css procssor code#
This way the developer doesn’t have to manually update the code to meet those browser standards, which is the tedious, old-fashioned way. For example, the primary use of a post-processor is to auto-optimize the CSS to fit current browser standards. A post-processor takes the existing CSS (after the pre-processor has compiled, of course) and applies automation and repetition to extend it even further. One of the first known post-processors was PostCSS, which came about in 2013 (more on PostCSS later). Post-processors have become an important aspect of the CSS workflow, too. Pre-processors aren’t the only thing revolutionizing style sheets. With a pre-processor, this practice is eliminated, and productivity is increased. This recalls the programming adage of DRY – “Don’t Repeat Yourself.” With regular CSS, repeating the same code over and over is a given.
Pre-processors make it possible to write reusable, maintainable, and extensible code in CSS. Do you need more maintainability and flexibility with your CSS code? Pre-processors will do exactly that, which can be vital for large and complex projects. Do you want more abstraction with your style sheets? Pre-processors can do that because they aren’t bound by the limitations of CSS.
The language of the pre-processor itself is not CSS, but it is interpreted or compiled into CSS.Īdding a CSS pre-processor to your design workflow is incredibly useful. Each pre-processor has its own syntax, but they’re all quite similar and fully capable of regular CSS code and syntax.
Pre-processors extend CSS with usable features such as variables, functions, mixins, operators, interpolations, nesting, and more. So, what is a CSS pre-processor? It is a dynamic stylesheet language that extends the functionality of CSS, making it compatible for all web browsers. Sass (Syntactically Awesome Style Sheets) has been around since 2006. I support open source, but I also understand why - given he apparently started the site as a proprietary concern, and the user-base didn't support him enough to continue - he doesn't want to go even further, give even more to the community and put himself in for further hassle by open-sourcing it now.Īt this point he probably just wants shot of it, and doesn't feel he owes the community or user-base anything more than he's already given them.CSS pre-processors have been gaining traction for the past several years.
#Css procssor for free#
He could try offering it around again for free (or open-sourcing the code), but given he's spent this long running the site without any compensation, tried selling it if anyone wants it enough to pay money for it (and nobody did), it seems perhaps a little presumptuous if anyone expects him to now just give it away for free so that others can benefit from all his hard work (and potentially bug the shit out of him with questions about getting the code working, setting up servers, etc). Having tried the first one and failed he's apparently now doing the second - first by trying to sell it on to someone else who might want it, and eventually by just shutting down the site when nobody wanted to take it on. If it takes him (say.) three hours a day to do maintenance, respond to technical issues, handle user-queries and the like, hosting is the very least of the costs associated with the site - he's apparently not willing to do this work for free any longer, so he can either get paid to do that work, or he can stop doing it. Hosting costs money, but he can't pay his rent with hosting, and hosting won't put gas in his car. If the only cost of a website was hosting then your comment would be spot-on, but running a popular site also takes a lot of time and effort, and "hosting" doesn't compensate for those.
0 kommentar(er)
