I'm Kero

Planning, Fast and Slow.

CodeKit vs. Prepros

After getting used to the convinience of CodeKit, a powerful tool which features scss/sass compiler and browser live-refresh, I've been searching for an alternative app on Windows for a while. And there comes Prepros, a free tool quite similar to CodeKit.

Before comparing them I have to admit I've been a big fan of CodeKit since 2 years ago and just got used to Prepros for severial days. I use Prepros only when I cannot do my work on Mac. From my experience, I think my old toy - CodeKit - truly is much better than Prepros, not only because I love Mac environment more. Here are some of their differences:

CodeKit watches HTML files but Prepros(Free) dosen't.

This is a big fallback of Prepros. Codekit watches all files including html/scss/sass/js/images, 'cause developers need them to be seen when any changes happen to them. That's the meaning of live-refreshing. I don't know why Prepros only serves as a pure scss compiler. It actually saves some time but not a lot of time.

Update: Prepros Pro does provide "Live Refresh Anything" for a resonable price($24).

CodeKit serves as file browser but Prepros dosen't.

You may see all files on the interface of CodeKit. It also allows you to hide or show whatever file you would like. These files are categorized automatically and can be dragged to other applications for editing work. Prepros only shows scss/sass files, and you cannot drag them out directly from the window. Alternatively, you may right-click on the files to execute the actions you want to.

Prepros dosen't have transition effect for CSS changes.

Well, it's not a big deal but I do enjoy the transition effect of CodeKit. It allows a webpage to update its CSS without fully-refresh, making the visual effects rather comfortable.

Prepros helps to optimize images while Codekit dosen't.

This is the only thing I could find so far that makes Prepros a little worth using. They provide image optimization function in a fast way. Yet the interface is annoying. I wonder why there is no batch processing option for this function since images tend to be numerous for website projects. Again, they do something good, but not good enough to make users love it.