Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#1

Post by andreiursan » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 12:11 PM UTC

Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
designshack.net

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#2

Post by jerryji » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 12:24 PM UTC

A 5 for the article, and a 7 for the comments.

BTW, I myself is a Foundation user, mainly because of its better responsive design.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#3

Post by davidw » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 12:44 PM UTC

As someone who just wants to get as much as possible out of the box, Bootstrap is the one that seems to have the momentum, which leads to more 'extras' and goodies, and more people making sure it works.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#4

Post by dorian-graph » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 12:54 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #3

As someone who just wants to get as much as possible out of the box, Bootstrap is the one that seems to have the momentum, which leads to more 'extras' and goodies, and more people making sure it works.

I would say, if you're looking for the kitchen sink, don't look at Foundation. It's explicitly not meant to be that kind of solution.

There are many different [responsive] frameworks and most seem to vary in what they're doing, how they're doing it and to what extent they're providing you a system.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#5

Post by wheaties » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 1:01 PM UTC

Zurb has one thing going for it that really makes a big difference, SASS. From the minute I saw SASS, I became a convert. Also, it's much less all encompassing.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#6

Post by hackerboos » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 1:03 PM UTC

I've been playing with Foundation recently but I've found the lack of documentation for the Compass gem to be frustrating.

It's not clear what mixins you need to include to make a site responsive without trial and error.

There's also a few mixins missing that would be useful; for example moving a field label to the left you add the classes "right inline" but there's no mixin to do this so I have to litter my markup with styling class names.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#7

Post by tnorthcutt » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 1:03 PM UTC

wheaties wrote: post #5

Zurb has one thing going for it that really makes a big difference, SASS. From the minute I saw SASS, I became a convert. Also, it's much less all encompassing.

FWIW, there are SASS ports of bootstrap.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#8

Post by sergiotapia » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 1:11 PM UTC

I'd have to go with Bootstrap because it just seems to offer more. I extensively use their buttons, warning styles, etc. and it's just better to have those already in the framework just in case.

Also on the Foundation website I can't seem to find examples of their typography, buttons and other UI elements.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#9

Post by bwh2 » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 1:23 PM UTC

My team compared Bootstrap, Foundation, and Skeleton in detail: http://responsive.vermilion.com/compare.php

We built the same layout (a real client project) in each framework and compared notes. That process really helped us understand the differences.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#10

Post by johnx123-up » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 1:30 PM UTC

Zurb's developer Mark went Twitter and used the Foundation codebase for Bootstrap... and now claiming to be the creator of Bootstrap.

In case if anyone missed, recent note from Zurb in HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4588826

Edit: And, Mark's defense http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4590315