Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing CSS-On-Diet vs CSS-Crush, the Slant community recommends CSS-Crush for most people. In the question“What are the best CSS preprocessors/postprocessors?” CSS-Crush is ranked 14th while CSS-On-Diet is ranked 15th. The most important reason people chose CSS-Crush is:
Rather than require a plugin, CSS-Crush will automatically add vendor prefixes.
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Fast to read and write CSS
Works like Emmet, shorting CSS keywords, but it's not limited only to writing. Also modifying and reading COD(CSS-On-Diet) files is faster.
Pro Easy to learn and use
Doesn't require programming skill to work with variables, mixins, media breakpoints
Pro Out of the box vendor prefixing
Rather than require a plugin, CSS-Crush will automatically add vendor prefixes.
Pro Implemented in PHP
PHP is used in common platforms such as Drupal and Wordpress, which results in CSS-Crush being easy to integrate with most development stacks.
Cons
Con It's difficult adjusting to different keywords
The keywords are shortened to 3 letters. For example, "background-color" becomes "bac" and "max-width" becomes "maw". These keywords are far less intuitive than their original form and make the CSS much less readable for those who don't know CSS-On-Diet.
Con Extremely limited adoption
CSS-On-Diet has just 7 stars on Github and a very small adoption rate. For an open source project this usually means less bugs reported, lesser documentation and few third-party learning resources.
Con Not widely used
CSS-Crush is not a widely used option. The small community of users results in a harder time finding answers to any questions you may have.
