I made a post about it, and personally prefer it to Sass and Less: http://nylira.com/stylus-the-revolutionary-successor-to-css/ The hardcore abbreviation mixins in my post seem to offend some coders. When you work in CSS and HTML hours every day though, every character saved adds up to a huge productivity boost.
My current project has 30 directories with 73 partial Sass files, which compile down to one 320kb file.
As to your question, I organize my partials based on controller and url structure.
My current project has 30 directories with 73 partial Sass files, which compile down to one 320kb file.
Isn't that a lot to download? That's like 2 seconds on average to download that file in the U.S., and probably in the 10 seconds or higher range for a lot of folks. I guess if the download is delayed to after some kind of engagement (sign up, etc) it's not a big deal?
Is 320K of CSS really necessary? (legitimately asking)
I'm working on a few relatively complex web apps where the CSS download time don't come to anywhere near that size. In my world (mobile devices, in particular) 320k would be totally unacceptable. 100k is about the point where I start re-evaluating my design.
Stylus is great: http://learnboost.github.com/stylus/
I made a post about it, and personally prefer it to Sass and Less: http://nylira.com/stylus-the-revolutionary-successor-to-css/ The hardcore abbreviation mixins in my post seem to offend some coders. When you work in CSS and HTML hours every day though, every character saved adds up to a huge productivity boost.
My current project has 30 directories with 73 partial Sass files, which compile down to one 320kb file.
As to your question, I organize my partials based on controller and url structure.