Interested in the rationale to choose bootstrap-sass over bootstrap-less. I chose the latter, though can't say I know enough about the divide to feel strongly one way or the other. It works well enough.
There were several reasons for choosing bootstrap-sass. For one, lots of readers recommended it. Moreover, in an introductory tutorial, I wanted to stay as close to the default asset pipeline as possible, which meant erring on the side of Sass. I also personally have a lot more experience with Sass (although, to be fair, LESS is very similar). Finally, the author of the bootstrap-sass gem (Thomas McDonald) got in touch with me and assured me that he plans to keep it up-to-date as Bootstrap itself changes.
Sure, I guess that simplifies things from the tutorial-user's standpoint...I had just wondered about the state of the sass maintainer keeping up with bootstrap updates. Though I'm sure bootstrap changes come infrequently enough that that's not a huge burden (?)
Less works well if you're using an architecture that will run node.js, since the recommended way generally seems to be: "change code in .less files, process with some node based javascript processor".
Don't misunderstand - It's not impossible to use less with other non-node.js based systems, but it is a massive PITA. There's a handy gem "less-rails-bootstrap" which wraps twitters bootstrap files and integrates with the Rails asset pipeline, but again, you should avoid this if you're not running on an up-to-date Intel system, since it has a dependency on "therubyracer" gem (which is V8 for ruby).
I have been using SimpLESS a little bit in the recent past, but it does choke on some of the bootstrap less files, and I haven't had the time to fork and rebuild it with a more up to date less library.
I think if I was coming to bootstrap now rather than a few weeks ago, I'd have chosen the sassified version rather than less, but fortunately I have an intel system to abuse, so all is not completely lost.
