I have just started using LESS CSS and it is great so far.
I do have a question or I am looking for a recommendation on the best way to use it.
I have been testing with the Mac Compiler and the client-side JS version.
I am sure there is some overhead to running it client-side and the Mac compiler works but its a bit slow because I keep having to run it.
Can anyone give me the pros and cons of each and if you have had more success doing it a certain way.
Thanks!
I'm on a mac and have been using StaticMatic.
If you're not afraid of the Terminal, you can quickly start new projects which generates some source files in HAML and SASS. Then you can run WebBrick (localhost:3000) to see you generated code on the fly.
When you're all done StaticMatic has a built in feature to "build" your site --> will generate HTML and CSS.
Hope this helps.
Related
Apologies for my daftness here, but trying to start a new design workflow and having a hard time wrapping my head around a few basic concepts.
I know that I want to join the party late and begin utilizing preprocessing in my development. After a lot of deliberation, I've also decided that I want to use Bourbon/Neat as the basic framework (as opposed to Bootstrap, etc.). Lastly, I've also decided to move over to Adobe Brackets after years of using Komodo Edit as my basic editor.
That said, I'm struggling to figure out how to get the damn thing to work. I've installed the SASS plugin for Brackets, but how exactly do I get Bourbon installed, get to work and start compiling. I've been reading articles, but feel like there's something about the process that I'm just not comprehending. If anyone can lend some thoughtful advice, it would be MUCH appreciated!
Do not bother with plugin, just follow framework guide (1. install it using ruby/node/whatever 2. run framework file watcher, it will compile sass css on save).
If you want to stick with plugin, then explore author's repo, it contains an example.
I've been using the Javascript implementation of LESS for working on a project, and it works great, however I'm now finished the project and in an effort to improve site performance I'd like to get the processed version of the CSS to use directly, rather than running it through LESS every time.
Can someone tell me if/how it's possible to view the processed LESS styles on my website? Perhaps it's under the hood of developer tools or something?
Thanks
Check out a LESS compiler, here's the link from the LESS official site:
https://github.com/less/less.js/wiki/GUI-compilers-that-use-LESS.js
LESS itself comes with a command line compiler.
Did anyone has the comparison between these two libraries (Combres2 and SquishIt)? If one library is better than another one, I also want to know the reason for that.
I found the article said that Combres2 has a better compression than SquishIt. But it is almost a year ago.
http://blog.buzzuti.com/post/Combres-vs-SquishIt-e28093-A-battle-of-Minification-Combiner-and-Squishing-in-generale280a6.aspx
One thing to make note of is that SquishIt works in a different manner than Combres2, so it isn't a simple who produces better minified code.
SquishIt works very nicely with T4MVC, which you won't get with Combres2. On this basis alone I'd tell anyone to use SquishIt. Additionally, SquishIt is not xml config file based, which allows for a lot of flexibility. In fact, you could theoretically make an xml config file and mimic Combres2 if you really desired it.
In terms of minification SquishIt is actively developed, which means that if new methods to minify scripts are created you'll be more likely able to leverage that as well. Currently it supports JSMin, YUI, MS Ajax Minifier, Closure Minifier, or even no minifier.
Update 1/18/2012: There are now many other alternatives out there aside from SquishIt and Combres2. For starters, Microsoft is creating there own system for the next release of ASP.NET 4.5. Cassette, similar to SquishIt, and RequestReduce, which is quite different than anything else by automagically doing everything for you.
I'm a fan of SquishIt.. even though Combres and SquishIt both (optionally) use the YuiCompressor.NET library (which I am biased, for ;-) )
Being a fan of Justin Etheredge, I recommend/use SquishIt.
The reasons to one library is better than the other (for me) is if the final result is NOT a break code and still working.
I have test and working with the Microsoft Ajax Minifier, and I assure you that is working absolute correct - can even minifie the jQuery library with out any issue.
http://ajaxmin.codeplex.com/
http://aspnet.codeplex.com/releases/view/40584
documentaion:
http://www.asp.net/ajaxlibrary/AjaxMinDocumentation.ashx
Now if a library is one year old this have nothing to do, because they just working on javascript code that have some standards some years now.
To point again out : the better is the one that product minimum code that is still working under very complex javascript functions like the one jQuery have.
One note:a minified library can minified a full set of files at ones, do not try to minified one by one and them add them to a single file, this is not working.
This is meant as an answer to the 'Microsoft Ajax Minifier' recommendation, and a general warning for those that do so. As my reputation is a mere 41, I cannot add the comment there, where it should go. :(
For our team, the native C# VS2017 Microsoft compression (which may or may not be the same as the one labeled as 'Microsoft Ajax Minifier') failed on the css function 'calc', and badly.
That was a bit tricky to track down, since the error (obviously) only occurs during minification. And since we were minifying based on environment (interwoven with Release, Debug), that meant the calc bug (by default) never appeared on local. It just magically appeared when we pushed to production... and only on pages that used the calc function.
(Definitely agree that minimum code add-on is fantastic. But the native minifier can be faulty. So proceed with caution.)
If you are not using 'calc' (and you are noticing no other issues), then likely your team is fine with the default minification tool.
And of course, Microsoft could have fixed the bug since we discovered it. But bug reporting through msdn doesn't always lead to resolution of the issue. :(
There may be other issues. But in our case (since we use 'calc'), that was sufficient to have us investigate other minifiers, and SquishIt has been our team's choice. We had not looked at Compres2 at that time. Up until now, we've been very happy with SquishIt.
Side note: I'm in the middle of investigating minifiers again because of some sort of 'collision' between jQuery 3.6.0 and SquishIt for VS2017. (with no 'collision' between jQuery 3.4.1 and SquishIt, VS2017). Early stages of problem-solving process.
Best wishes and happy coding,
Michael M.
We have a flex based UI whose functionality (eg: login, logout) needs to be tested periodically in IE 7. Manual testing takes a lot of time and hence we want to automate it.
EDIT: We dont have the source code of this app uder test so cannot use something like FlexUnit. Is there a way to automate this testing?
I have heard of FleXmonkey, but have read negative reviews of it and hence wary of trying it.
EDIT: source of negative review:
Automated testing of FLEX based applications
(Comment by Ryan H)
Please suggest if theres a way to go about it.
EDIT: An open-source solution is preferred.
Thank you.
You won't get very far in your development adventures if you avoid reviewing things just because you read negative reviews. ( Please provide a source for said negative reviews ). I've also read bad things about Flex and Flash Builder and the Flash Player. Yet, you still ended up using Flex?
That said, I strongly suggest checking out Flex Monkey.
RIATest is another option.
I believe you can also do this sort of testing with QTP. I couldn't find a specific source for QTP info, but there are a few links if you google.
http://www.learnqtp.com/does-quicktest-professional-support-flashadobe-flex-applications/
http://vishnuagrawal.blogspot.com/2009/04/flex-automation-testing-with-qtp.html
Without recompiling the source code, it is not possible to test Flex in all cases. Saucelabs IDE claims that it can test Flex without recompiling the code. You may check that.
I think FlexMonkey is pretty cool and worth judging on your own. Most of these tools use the same underlying automation framework provided by Adobe, and thus have many of the same pains and challenges. We've actually done a lot the last few months to make it easier to work with and have been working to provide more documentation on dealing with common challenges.
If you do have problem, you will find that our Forums are very active with questions and answers: http://www.gorillalogic.com/forum/7
-Jon Rose -
Gorilla Logic, Inc
Some Flex automation tools support testing of Flex applications without requiring to recompile it.
RIATest definitely supports it (called runtime loading) and if I am not wrong QTP does it as well. AFAIK there are no open source tools that support it.
Beware though that runtime loading is not for every application. If for example you are using custom html wrapper you cannot use it with runtime loading.
I've been working on a project called Axial that converts MSIL (compiled C# or VB.NET) to JavaScript. There are a few samples of working code, but some common situations don't work properly. (The current release doesn't work in production mode and the SVN code doesn't work in debug mode but is much cleaner.) I've heard from quite a few people that they hate writing JavaScript, so I know the project has some merit, but I'd guess that attitude is less prevalent among the SO community.
Assume the product works perfectly and smoothly, so your JavaScript works 100% of the time and a Visual Studio plug-in makes sure you're using the product correctly. Is this something you or your organization would use? What features other than straight code translation would interest you?
That sounds very much like a .NET-centric version of GWT. I guess the questions are:
Have I understood the purpose correctly?
Do you believe you can overcome any roadblocks that GWT users might stumble over?
Is there enough benefit in having a .NET version as well as GWT to make the duplication of effort worthwhile? (I'd personally just write the Java code and use GWT, but I know not all .NET developers know Java, and you may already have common library stuff you want to port.)
Do you have any useful ideas you could contribute to GWT? :)
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but haven't used GWT myself.)
Been done (pretty much).