Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

dannyherran.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#71

Post by sophacles »

kiallmacinnes wrote: post #45
code_research wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody should be using Photoshop nowadays to design a website. A competent web designer knows about html and css and - most importantly - has a good understanding for how a website behaves, especially regarding responsiveness and animations. It is a good reason to leave the room / team / project when "design a website" means "open photoshop".

So, I'm not a web designer or developer (anymore). But.. This strikes me as being the same line of though as "Leave the team when your new coding project starts with a whiteboard rather than text editor". Sure, we can just start coding, but the result is rarely as clean.

I always have to remind my team that "a few weeks of coding will save us several hours of planning", when ever they just want to dive into code.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#72

Post by mbesto »

oneweekwonder wrote: post #58
neovive wrote: post #50

I currently use Bootstrap, but have been looking at Bourbon recently along with it's suite of components (Neat, Bitters and Refills). It offers a nice set of mixins for semantic grids and common components. My only concern is working with other developers where Bootstrap is almost a common language.

Something I'm missing on Foundation and Bourbon[0] website is the self explanatory documentation. It is something that is very useful for me as I play around with Bootstrap, because I can find the section of functionality I need and then almost copy and paste their example code or inspect the element to understand it better. Did I just miss something obvious or does it not exist? [0]: http://bourbon.io/

Yup, check out Refills: http://refills.bourbon.io/

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#73

Post by harlanlewis »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #54
yoavm wrote: post #23

It's 2016 and Bootstrap still doesn't have native RTL support. Foundation had it (excellently) since 2013. When I'm building something for the local market, this has a major affect on my decision.

There was an attempt to do so. They were using an RTL-flipping tool and it all looked pretty cool (I built something with it) but then one of the people who manually flipped Bootstrap basically accused them of being culturally insensitive by trying to automate this task and they abandoned it.

"Culturally insensitive" wasn't part of the discussion. He listed specific technical and UX issues with their approach. Another commenter in this thread posted a link to the github discussion.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#74

Post by tmaly »

neovive wrote: post #50

I currently use Bootstrap, but have been looking at Bourbon recently along with it's suite of components (Neat, Bitters and Refills). It offers a nice set of mixins for semantic grids and common components. My only concern is working with other developers where Bootstrap is almost a common language.

I have taken the same path. Bootstrap is quite heavy in size, and compressed css from Bourbon is super lightweight.

I wish there was more support for Bourbon in Wordpress.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#75

Post by frogtog »

reitanqild wrote: post #67
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an attempt to do so. They were using an RTL-flipping tool and it all looked pretty cool (I built something with it) but then one of the people who manually flipped Bootstrap basically accused them of being culturally insensitive by trying to automate this task and they abandoned it.

If true this could be added to a list of nasty side effects of rampant enforcement of political correctness.

It's not true. The user didn't accuse them of being culturally insensitive. Rather, he argued that that automating the conversion was fool's errand, partly due to the differences between the various RTL languages. He suggested that the Bootstrap team point users to quality RTL themes instead of releasing a shoddy built-in RTL implementation.

Perhaps this should be added to the list of instances of people dismissing valid arguments by labeling them polical correctness.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#76

Post by neovive »

oneweekwonder wrote: post #58
neovive wrote: post #50

I currently use Bootstrap, but have been looking at Bourbon recently along with it's suite of components (Neat, Bitters and Refills). It offers a nice set of mixins for semantic grids and common components. My only concern is working with other developers where Bootstrap is almost a common language.

Something I'm missing on Foundation and Bourbon[0] website is the self explanatory documentation. It is something that is very useful for me as I play around with Bootstrap, because I can find the section of functionality I need and then almost copy and paste their example code or inspect the element to understand it better. Did I just miss something obvious or does it not exist? [0]: http://bourbon.io/

As Bourbon is just a collection of Sass mixins, I think the intention for the source to be self-documenting. The docs for Bitters [0], Neat [1] and Refills [3] are a bit closer in style to Bootstrap, since they are more opinionated add-ons to the base Bourbon base.

[0] http://bitters.bourbon.io/example.html [1] http://thoughtbot.github.io/neat-docs [2] http://refills.bourbon.io/

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#77

Post by ethanbond »

cmdkeen wrote: post #31

The key unanswered question, and for me the fundamental reason I switched from using Bootstrap to Foundation at work, is how designer friendly the two are. Bootstrap is fantastic when you want a site that looks like Bootstrap, these tend to be put together by developers. Foundation (at least was) much less opinionated and therefore when you're given a PSD by a designer much easier to implement. Have things improved o…

Yeah I cringed hard when the author said Bootstrap wins the design side of things. Yeah, sure, a Bootstrap site that looks like Bootstrap looks better than a Foundation site that looks like Foundation.

That's because Bootstrap piles on a whole load of stuff that are really just annoyances for anyone who wants to make their site NOT look like it came off the same assembly line as millions of others.

Bootstrap has moved towards Foundation's more barebones method, but still not there.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#78

Post by ethanbond »

andybak wrote: post #46
cmdkeen wrote: post #31

The key unanswered question, and for me the fundamental reason I switched from using Bootstrap to Foundation at work, is how designer friendly the two are. Bootstrap is fantastic when you want a site that looks like Bootstrap, these tend to be put together by developers. Foundation (at least was) much less opinionated and therefore when you're given a PSD by a designer much easier to implement. Have things improved o…

Is it really that hard? The templates on http://wrapbootstrap.com/ are fairly varied and don't tend to be obviously bootstrappy.

But grabbing a template from a website isn't "working with a designer."

Foundation still blows Bootstrap away in terms of building a truly bespoke site on top of their components.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#79

Post by ethanbond »

code_research wrote: post #33
stevoski wrote: post #8

Bootstrap 4 seems to be the clear winner, according to the article. If you want to start designing with it already (which is not a great idea; it is still alpha), here's a Bootstrap 4 PSD template you can use: http://hackerthemes.com/blog/bootstrap-4-psd-template

Nobody should be using Photoshop nowadays to design a website. A competent web designer knows about html and css and - most importantly - has a good understanding for how a website behaves, especially regarding responsiveness and animations. It is a good reason to leave the room / team / project when "design a website" means "open photoshop".

Not a fan of Photoshop, but people should be using whatever tools help them to build good products.

Maybe a simple canned marketing website can be worth skipping the planning phase, but good luck doing anything complex without some mocks. As a designer who can code, I usually skip the hi-fi mockup stage myself, but that's because I do it instead on paper.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#80

Post by steveeq1 »

hit8run wrote: post #12

Wow an alpha version is recommended for production. What world are we living in?! :D I tested BS4 but the alpha tag makes me too nervous to use it in production. Things will break and some things are still not there yet (talking about navigation in bs4).

Do you know where I can find a compiled version of bootstrap 4? I am on boostrap 3, but am about to roll out a site in a few weeks, so I might as well put 4 on if it's that stable.
Post reply on HN