When comparing Sass vs NPM, the Slant community recommends Sass for most people. In the question“What are the best web design tools?” Sass is ranked 3rd while NPM is ranked 9th. 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.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
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.
Pro Compatible with any CLI
NPM is compatible with any CLI the developer wants to use.
Pro Plenty of helpful NPM modules/plugins
NPM has a strong community that has developed plenty of libraries and plugins that are useful to developers.
Pro Very concise configuration
NPM scripts require fewer lines of code to run a given task. This is true even when it's for running build processes. Using Unix pipes lots of tasks can be reduced to one-liners.
Pro Does not need any wrapper modules
With other task runners, you need to install wrapper modules for tools you may already have installed. When using NPM that's not necessary, to use the tools you need, just install them directly through NPM.
Pro Part of node.js distribution
Pro You're most likely using NPM already
Pro Uncomplicated package management system
When it works...
Cons
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.
Con Custom tasks require additional keyword 'run'
Only a few standard tasks support being executed without the run
keyword (e.g., npm start
vs npm run customtask
)
Con Not a build system, only a task runner
It is supposed to be used for running gulp, webpack or whatever. But it is not supposed to be used as a build system.
Con Passing parameters is awkward
In order to pass additional parameters to npm you must add them after --
(e.g., npm run build -- --custom='foo'
).
Con Badly documented
Less than bare minimum official documentation leaves users in the dark without taking often expensive external courses. Even the --help text has unpluggable gaps. One official source notes the documentation isn't adequate yet nothing has been done to fix this.
Con Lot of issues with authentication and random node problems
Unable to recover from common depencies conflicts consistantly. Error messages are not always helpful to debugging. Doesn't account well for users with different versions of node.
Con Does not run well with Windows
Since a lot of projects that use NPM as a build tool most of the time make use of Bash scripts as well. This means that open source projects that run the command npm run
may run into issues when used in a Windows environment.
Con Doesn't allow you to create build process with complicated logic on its own
In complex heterogeneous app you will quickly migrate to gulp, webpack or whatever leaving to NPM only simple task running responsibility.