Ever thought if there were any alternatives for html and css?
#IDidNot

The real question is, does HTML need an alternative/preprocessor? I vote a def no.

@theuser me too. But it just never occurred to me until today that there could be alternatives for html. So I thought this was very interesting.

Well, technically it's just a preprocessor, like a templating engine, right? Browsers only read HTML anyways.

Its not an alternative.

Its a markup language that is converted into html using ruby just like hundreds other markup languages.

Personally I do not consider it easier to read. If I wanted easier to read markdown is better as its even more dimple syntax.

The closest “alternative” is pure xml + xslt.
The reason is that both are sent to the browser as plain text and uses the built in support of the browser to convert into html right in the browser.

And while the xslt can be very complex, once you have it designed the xml can be very simple and easy to read with context oriented elements.

The only reason I don’t use HTML is when I make a pen, then, it’s easier to write haml.

Def wouldn’t change HTML for anything.

I use haml for bootstrap

.container#main
.row
.col-6.col-lg4

Is much nicer to read when it comes to 73363949302727 nested divs IMHO

Haml just compiles to HTML.
Like how Sass/Less/Stylus compiles to CSS
or
Typescript/Elm/CoffeScript/ClojureScript compiles to JS.

staticmatic got me into haml. those were the days