When comparing Less vs Sass, the Slant community recommends Sass for most people. In the question“What are the best CSS preprocessors/postprocessors?” Sass is ranked 1st while Less is ranked 3rd. The most important reason people chose Sass is:
You are able to declare custom functions with Sass (for example, converting units) which can be easily invoked, even when using shorthand properties. This results in cleaner, more reusable code.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Easy to learn
Because Less has a lightweight feature set, is syntactically similar to CSS and can be run client side with file conversion on a page reload, it is easy to pick up by anyone familiar with CSS & the very basics of JS.
Also, Less has detailed and well-organized documentation, GUI apps that can watch and compile code for you and a huge, active and helpful community.
Pro Familiar CSS style syntax
The LESS syntax is essentially the same as CSS with extensions for dynamic behavior such as variables, mixins, operations and functions.
Variables:
@color: #4D926F;
#header {
color: @color;
}
h2 {
color: @color;
}
Mixins:
.rounded-corners (@radius: 5px) {
-webkit-border-radius: @radius;
-moz-border-radius: @radius;
-ms-border-radius: @radius;
-o-border-radius: @radius;
border-radius: @radius;
}
#header {
.rounded-corners;
}
#footer {
.rounded-corners(10px);
}
Nested Rules:
#header {
h1 {
font-size: 26px;
font-weight: bold;
}
p { font-size: 12px;
a { text-decoration: none;
&:hover { border-width: 1px }
}
}
}
Pro Modern features and mixins
Less contains the base feature-set for a CSS preprocessor:
- Nesting
- Variables
- Basic mathematical operations
- Color functions
- @import
- Basic type functions
Pro Popular
Less is one of the most popular preprocessors due to being the easy to learn and its use in Twitter Bootstrap.
Pro Less is written in JavaScript
Many web developers are familiar with JavaScript and because Less is written in JS, it can be processed client side making the set-up easy.
Pro GUI apps
Apps such as Crunch, SimpLESS, WinLess, Koala, CodeKit, LiveReload or Prepros will watch and compile less.js for you.
Pro Good IDE support
IDEs such as VS Code, Visual Studio and WebStorm (and other JetBrains IDEs) support LESS either natively or through plugins.
Pro Powerful advanced function features
You are able to declare custom functions with Sass (for example, converting units) which can be easily invoked, even when using shorthand properties. This results in cleaner, more reusable code.
Pro Nested selectors
Sass allows you to nest selectors which results in code that is both faster to write and cleaner to read.
For example, this:
.parent
color: blue
.child
color: yellow
Will compile to this:
.parent {
color: blue;
}
.parent .child {
color: yellow;
}
Pro Rapid development
Another big advantage for Sass is the very active community pushing the development forward at a rapid pace. Sass is constantly coming out with bug fixes, and are often the first to come out with improvements.
This is an important factor to keep in mind when picking a preprocessor to invest your time into.
Pro Extends CSS maintaining compatibility with CSS standards specification
It comes with two possible syntaxes:
- Sass - No parens or semicolons allowed and the nesting is dictated with whitespace.
- SCSS - SCSS syntax is a superset of CSS – which means SCSS can be written as CSS, but has been expanded to include the features of Sass as well.
SCSS is easier to pick up for beginners and Sass has a cleaner syntax. Having both syntaxes means you can pick the one that best suits your coding style.
The mandatory syntax rules for both SCSS and Sass results in a more consistent code. For a more detailed analysis between Sass and SCSS go here. To see a nice comparison of the Sass syntax against CSS and SCSS go here.
Pro Output minified CSS
Sass simplifies minifying CSS files by offering a one-line command that will output a minified version.
Pro Easy to learn
It's very comfortable and easy to write/learn Sass, even for beginners.
Pro Compass framework provides added features
Sass can be used with a framework called Compass, which provides additional functions and mixins which can reduce the amount of code you have to write.
For example, Compass will take care of vendor prefixes.
This:
div {
background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(#F00, #000);
background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(#F00, #000);
background-image: -o-linear-gradient(#F00, #000);
background-image: linear-gradient(#F00, #000);
}
Can be written as:
.gradient {
@include background-image(linear-gradient(#F00, #000));
}
For a full list of features, check out the Compass documentation.
Pro Source maps support
Rather than being limited to editing the outputted CSS file in devtools, with source maps you are able to manipulate the original .scss file.
Pro Libsass - C/C++ port of Sass
There is also a C/C++ port of the Sass CSS precompiler called Libsass that decouples Sass from Ruby. It is very fast, portable and easy to build and integrate with a variety of platforms and languages.
Pro New sass package means you no longer need external dependencies
The latest implementation of Sass is written in Dart, and compiles to pure JS with no native code or external dependencies, means you no longer need Ruby or libSass.
Pro Easy to use with ruby apps
Since it's written in Ruby, it's easier and faster to use with Ruby apps.
Cons
Con Less uses '@' to declare variables
The '@' symbol is used with Less to declare variables. However '@' already has meaning in CSS, as it is used to declare @media queries and @keyframes. This can result in some confusion when reading the code.
Con calc() requires interpolation
Con Limited support of conditionals
Less currently has limited support of conditionals such as ternary operators.
Con No custom functions
Less does not offer custom functions and instead requires the use of mixins. This is limiting in many ways - Functions cannot be called on shorthand values, they cannot return a value, and code needs to be repeated depending on where the mixin is needed.
Con Noisy syntax
Many unnecessary characters such as the following:
{}:;@
Con No loop and conditionals block
Con Requires Ruby or libSass
To compile Sass, it needs either Ruby or libSass installed locally.
Con Noisy syntax
There is many unnecessary characters when using the SCSS syntax.
{}:;@
However using the Sass syntax eliminates them.