On Nov 1, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote:

> Google is more useful than any reference book to find answers to
> programming problems.

Too bad they got rid of codesearch.

On Nov 1, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Nate Hill wrote:

> Huh.  Michael, I'd love to know more about why I should care about SASS.
> I kinda like writing CSS.
> I see why LESS makes sense, but help me under stand why
> SASS does?

For the most part, using *any* CSS pre-processor is better than not
using one. 

LESS's problem was that it's javascript based ... so if they have
JS off ... you've got nothing.  And it's got to be done for each user,
rather than re-generate the files after you've made a modification.
You can get around this with the 'lessc' compiler, and serve valid
css files rather than having each client have to do the processing.

They've also got different syntaxes, so it's really up to which one
makes sense to you.  

Functionality wise ... I think they're about equal these days.  I suspect
that if one comes up with a useful new feature, the other group will copy

On Nov 1, 2012, at 5:21 PM, Suchy, Daniel wrote:

> I can already feel the collective rolling of eyes for this, but what about
> Twitter? It's not a guide or manual, but start following and engaging
> talented developers and library geeks on Twitter and you'll soon have more
> help than you know what to do with.  Plus, no Zoia ;)

Too much misinformation:

On Nov 1, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Kam Woods wrote:

> foss4lib is a good resource that I'm sure many use, but isn't (as far as I
> can tell) linked anywhere on the current code4lib site. How would this
> differentiate itself from that?

The best tool isn't necessarily free or open source.  (and it isn't necessarily

So that being said ...

my whiteboard.  And a digital camera ... none of that 'smartboard' crap.