F# vs Sass: What are the differences?
F#: Strongly-typed, functional-first programming language for writing simple code to solve complex problems. F# is a mature, open source, cross-platform, functional-first programming language. It empowers users and organizations to tackle complex computing problems with simple, maintainable and robust code; Sass: Syntactically Awesome Style Sheets. Sass is an extension of CSS3, adding nested rules, variables, mixins, selector inheritance, and more. It's translated to well-formatted, standard CSS using the command line tool or a web-framework plugin.
F# can be classified as a tool in the "Languages" category, while Sass is grouped under "CSS Pre-processors / Extensions".
"Pattern-matching" is the top reason why over 40 developers like F#, while over 598 developers mention "Variables" as the leading cause for choosing Sass.
F# and Sass are both open source tools. It seems that Sass with 12K GitHub stars and 1.93K forks on GitHub has more adoption than F# with 2.09K GitHub stars and 341 GitHub forks.
According to the StackShare community, Sass has a broader approval, being mentioned in 2099 company stacks & 1484 developers stacks; compared to F#, which is listed in 19 company stacks and 16 developer stacks.
What is F#?
What is Sass?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using F#?
What are the cons of using Sass?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Visual Studio Code worked really well for us as well, it worked well with all our polyglot services and the .Net core integration had great cross-platform developer experience (to be fair, F# was a bit trickier) - actually, each of our team members used a different OS (Ubuntu, macos, windows). Our production deployment ran for a time on Docker Swarm until we've decided to adopt Kubernetes with almost seamless migration process.
After our positive experience of running .Net core workloads in containers and developing Tweek's .Net services on non-windows machines, C# had gained back some of its popularity (originally lost to Node.js), and other teams have been using it for developing microservices, k8s sidecars (like https://github.com/Soluto/airbag), cli tools, serverless functions and other projects...
ReactQL is written in TypeScript to provide full types/Intellisense, and pick up hard-to-diagnose goofs that might later show up at runtime. React makes heavy use of Webpack 4 to handle transforming your code to an optimised client-side bundle, and in throws back just enough code needed for the initial render, while seamlessly handling
import statements asynchronously as needed, making the payload your user downloads ultimately much smaller than trying to do it by hand.
React Helmet was chosen to handle
<head> content, because it works universally, making it easy to throw back the correct
<title> and other tags on the initial render, as well as inject new tags for subsequent client-side views.
<style> tags when using #StyledComponents.
React Router handles routing, because it works both on the server and in the client. ReactQL customises it further by capturing non-200 responses on the server, redirecting or throwing back custom 404 pages as needed.
Koa is the web server that handles all incoming HTTP requests, because it's fast (TTFB < 5ms, even after fully rendering React), and its natively #async, making it easy to async/await inside routes and middleware.
I've used .NET for many years, but only in recent years, after Microsoft introduced .NET Core, I've found a new love and excitement for the technology again. The main driver for us using .NET Core is not that it is cross platform compatible, open source or blazingly fast (which it is!), but the fact that we can use (what we consider) the best programming languages (mainly F# and C#) to carry out our jobs without sacrificing the other benefits.
Today we run most of our web infrastructure on .NET Core in Docker containers, deployed into a Kubernetes cluster which spans across multiple time zones in the Google Cloud and we couldn't be happier. Due to the portability of the .NET Core platform we are even able to develop many new services as serverless functions with F# which has become an absolute game changer.
We use Sass because I invented it! No, that's not a joke at all! Well, let me explain. So, we used Sass before I started at Rent the Runway because it's the de-facto industry standard for pre-compiled and pre-processed CSS. We do also use PostCSS for stuff like vendor prefixing and various transformations, but Sass (specifically SCSS) is the main developer-focused language for describing our styling. Some internal apps use styled-components and @Aphrodite, but our main website is allllll Sassy. Oh, but the non-joking part is the inventing part. /shrug
It was a little awkward building BS3 with LESS, and the rest of the site with SCSS, but it works. SCSS made building the UI elements (ink/flip buttons, img navs, etc) a breeze. It also drives the mobile menu open/close transitions - that would have been much too much with vanilla css.
Sass helps us write better stylesheets. One major improvement over CSS that we use a lot is variables - it allows for much easier theming to quickly change brand colors for new instances of the xCoLab.
When you realise that countless lines of CSS codes could be made countable. And off course, a wonderful and cool way to use the logic behind variables and nesting. Simply love it.
Sass is used as a part of Woltlab Suite Core, which offers to submit/configure own styles via the injection of own Sass-CSS. So we exclusively rely on Sass for our CSS needs.
CSS is a mess. There, we said it. Sass, on the other hand takes CSS and makes it pretty, easy to work with and has stuff like variables which make things seriously awesome.