State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation • Hacker News Board

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#101

Post by smitherfield » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 4:29 AM UTC

davorak wrote: post #93

bildung wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, sure have :) Problem is most (European, e.g. less donation-financed) non-profits have a cash flow fundamentally different to that of a company: Most of the budget comes from a foundation, the government etc. and is tied to a specific use . So if the non-profit got funds for a specific project, they have e.g. full wages for 3 persons, much money for train tickets/renting of cars, food and accomodation, renting of…

What is the incentive with staying with IE? Do they anticipate that the app might one day be used outside of the non-profit and therefore can not be written for Firefox or chrome?

Probably relies on ActiveX controls or something else proprietary to old IEs.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#102

Post by bildung » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:43 AM UTC

davorak wrote: post #93

bildung wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, sure have :) Problem is most (European, e.g. less donation-financed) non-profits have a cash flow fundamentally different to that of a company: Most of the budget comes from a foundation, the government etc. and is tied to a specific use . So if the non-profit got funds for a specific project, they have e.g. full wages for 3 persons, much money for train tickets/renting of cars, food and accomodation, renting of…

What is the incentive with staying with IE? Do they anticipate that the app might one day be used outside of the non-profit and therefore can not be written for Firefox or chrome?

Sometimes switching to Firefox or Chrome works, sometimes not. The more technically literate orgs often don't use IE anyway. The problem are the technically illiterate people.

I'm wary to not inadvertently fall into the IT support role by advising not to use IE. If a bunch of really unskilled folks switch to Firefox because I say so, whom will they call if something doesn't quite work as before? :) I can (and do) say no to calls like these, but I'm always wary it taints the relationship a bit.

An approach that usually works if I explain the reasons beforehand is transparent pricing: The solution costs $x for all browsers incl. IE9+, or more if IE8 has to be supported. That way the argument is about the org being able to afford IE8, not about me being the picky geek.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#103

Post by lmm » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:49 AM UTC

sbarre wrote: post #90

lmm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah. The defaults should be defaults, and if you want to change them you override them. No?

And the defaults are provided by the browser , are they not?

The browsers have really dropped the ball though. Something like 80% of bootstrap should just be the default stylesheet in modern browsers, IMO.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#104

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 10:13 AM UTC

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.

Apparently the current status is to do this in a minor update just after 4.0 ships:

https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/19555#issuecomment-...

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#105

Post by ethanbond » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

nilliams wrote: post #91

ethanbond wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you explain or give any examples where this is the case? At my work we build totally bespoke designs with Bootstrap and are having a good experience.

I personally find that if I'm spending time overriding a framework's defaults for literally every single thing I do, that it's a badly designed framework.

Maybe there's some sort of Bootstrap "reset.css" type of thing now, but I couldn't handle it back when I tried Bootstrap.

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#106

Post by nilliams » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #105

nilliams wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain or give any examples where this is the case? At my work we build totally bespoke designs with Bootstrap and are having a good experience.

I personally find that if I'm spending time overriding a framework's defaults for literally every single thing I do, that it's a badly designed framework. Maybe there's some sort of Bootstrap "reset.css" type of thing now, but I couldn't handle it back when I tried Bootstrap.

In Bootstrap 3 you shouldn't have to override anything.

I think I've found one exception which is the toggle button in the navbar element that seems to have some annoying defaults I have to override every time, but that's it.

(If your experience was with Bootstrap 2, then that explains your feelings, but that situation was pretty categorically fixed with BS3).

Re: State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

#107

Post by nilliams » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #65

ianleeclark wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems fairly over-opinionated for the framework to declare every button as exactly the same. What if a developer needs one orange square button and one normal, greyish-silver boostrap button. If every class is automatically applied to each button, you're going to need to override the styling for that specific orange, square button.

Well yeah. The defaults should be defaults, and if you want to change them you override them. No?

That's how e.g. Bootstrap 2 worked. It sucked. Bootstrap 3 moved to opt-in styles and it is way better. If you really want all buttons to be BS-like you simply write (in Less -- I cba to look up the Sass but it's similarly trivial):

    button {
      .btn;
    }