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

Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

blog.getbootstrap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 142 posts

Re: Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

#71

Post by papsosouid »

fatbird wrote: post #68
papsosouid wrote: post #46

I'm mainly a backend guy but do some frontend work from time to time. I keep seeing all this talk about a dozen different CSS "frameworks", and I just don't get it. Can someone explain to me what the purpose of these things is? Bootstrap's site for example doesn't even try to tell me what I would want it for, it just says I want it "because its for nerds" (do I have to dress in faux-nerd chic and live in the valley t…

What you seem to be missing is that implementing complex designs means spending a lot of time dealing with cross-browser issues and platform-specific minutiae. Using these frameworks saves a lot of time, if the affordances you accept by using them are okay for you. Yes, it is a lot of boilerplate CSS. "Boilerplate" just means the boring stuff that's the same every time and is appropriately abstracted away in a framew…

>I've read your responses below and you're weirdly contemptuous of these frameworks.

No, just that using the word "framework" in reference to something that is in no way even remotely like a framework caused much confusion. I was expecting it to be a framework, and was trying to figure out what I was missing. If the answer is (and others have already said this is the case) "its just a design to copy" that's fine. Although I do find it pretty absurd that so many people seem to want to suggest that "a default stylesheet" is some revolution in web design, and is a "framework". Hasn't everyone already used their own default stylesheet since the 90s?

Re: Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

#72

Post by fatbird »

papsosouid wrote: post #71
fatbird wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you seem to be missing is that implementing complex designs means spending a lot of time dealing with cross-browser issues and platform-specific minutiae. Using these frameworks saves a lot of time, if the affordances you accept by using them are okay for you. Yes, it is a lot of boilerplate CSS. "Boilerplate" just means the boring stuff that's the same every time and is appropriately abstracted away in a framew…

>I've read your responses below and you're weirdly contemptuous of these frameworks. No, just that using the word "framework" in reference to something that is in no way even remotely like a framework caused much confusion. I was expecting it to be a framework, and was trying to figure out what I was missing. If the answer is (and others have already said this is the case) "its just a design to copy" that's fine. Alt…

Okay, now I get it: You're trolling HN. Good for you. You got me.

Re: Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

#73

Post by juddlyon »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #40
ericcholis wrote: post #16

Hijacking the thread a bit here. Foundation ( http://foundation.zurb.com ) also released 3.2 on October 26th: http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/changelog.php

Upvoted. Contrary to others's ocd opinions, I have no problem with you posting this. I wasn't aware Foundation had gotten an update recently, nice to know. And while this thread is about Bootstrap, they're the two most sophisticated frontend frameworks available right now, so it's not totally unrelated.

I didn't know either, I don't mind comments like this if they are actually relevant.

Re: Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

#74

Post by wilfra »

papsosouid wrote: post #63
wilfra wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yet I see no purpose or value to it at all" Did you visit that link? If you don't see the "purpose or value" in having all of that functionality instantly just by adding CSS classes, I don't know what to tell you. Another huge perk is the responsive design. Bootstrap looks great on any device out of the box.

Yes, I visited the link. And I saw twitters web design. Like I said. I already get styles by adding classes, or even better, without having to spam up my markup with pointless classes. That is how CSS works. You seem to be suggesting that my choices are use twitter's CSS, or don't use CSS at all. The benefit you describe comes from CSS, not bootstrap. Responsive design is the norm, not a "huge perk" of boostrap. Basi…

I'm not sure why you keep saying 'looks like Twitter'. Bootstrap was originally created by Twitter, it wasn't created to make every site look like Twitter - nor does it do that.

As for your other comments, you seem to have a far greater knowledge and skill level dealing with CSS than you let on. That's great for you, it must make doing frontend work a breeze - and maybe you don't need Bootstrap. Not everybody is so experienced though - and for them, Bootstrap can make life much simpler.

Re: Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

#75

Post by papsosouid »

wilfra wrote: post #74
papsosouid wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I visited the link. And I saw twitters web design. Like I said. I already get styles by adding classes, or even better, without having to spam up my markup with pointless classes. That is how CSS works. You seem to be suggesting that my choices are use twitter's CSS, or don't use CSS at all. The benefit you describe comes from CSS, not bootstrap. Responsive design is the norm, not a "huge perk" of boostrap. Basi…

I'm not sure why you keep saying 'looks like Twitter'. Bootstrap was originally created by Twitter, it wasn't created to make every site look like Twitter - nor does it do that. As for your other comments, you seem to have a far greater knowledge and skill level dealing with CSS than you let on. That's great for you, it must make doing frontend work a breeze - and maybe you don't need Bootstrap. Not everybody is so e…

"Looks like twitter" is just shorter than "looks like every bootstrap website on the internet". My CSS knowledge and skill is very low, I'd rate myself a 2 or a 3 out of 10. I tend to leave the design work to the designers whenever I can. I certainly agree that a default stylesheet is quick and easy, I just didn't realize that's all boostrap is. Now I know the answer to the question everyone keeps asking me ("why aren't you using bootstrap") is "because I already have a default stylesheet". Previously my answer was "I don't know what I am supposed to do with it or why".

Re: Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

#76

Post by cies »

I like bootstrap but my lessc parser under Ubuntu sucks. Bad error messages (errors dont understand importing), no autocompilation and hard to install (have to install the whole Node.js world).

Anyone found a solution that works well under Ubuntu? (I use it with WordPress and Drupal; Rails would be nice but there I run for Sass/SCSS).

Re: Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

#78

Post by lelandbatey »

fatbird wrote: post #72
papsosouid wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've read your responses below and you're weirdly contemptuous of these frameworks. No, just that using the word "framework" in reference to something that is in no way even remotely like a framework caused much confusion. I was expecting it to be a framework, and was trying to figure out what I was missing. If the answer is (and others have already said this is the case) "its just a design to copy" that's fine. Alt…

Okay, now I get it: You're trolling HN. Good for you. You got me.

Please don't use a cop out like this. I don't think that writing someone off is very helpful to the discussion, and it's made worse when you don't explain yourself.

To respond to papsosouid:

I'll be very honest, I have little experience with most of the skills that others on HN commonly have (lots of code experience, tinkering with projects, etc) so I can only speak to what I think about BootStrap.

For me, BootStrap is a great tool to make web pages in a way that:

  1. I know will work.

  2. I know will look acceptable.
It's rather like the Ikea of CSS. It's simple, clear, and accessible for someone with little design sense or experience (like me!).

I feel like that was part of your underlying question: "Why do people use this?"

The other part of your question would be "How is this a framework?"

Looking at Wikipedia[0], a framework is a set of generic functions/tools that can be changed by the user to fit their needs. Based off of that definition, I feel that this very well fits what BootStrap is. It's a set of pre-made tools (CSS classes) that can be easily modified to fit specific cases.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework

Re: Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

#79

Post by egonschiele »

papsosouid wrote: post #65
jiggy2011 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with grids? Everything I have read about design seems to advocate laying things out in the fashion. The nice thing about bootstrap is it enables things like having say, 2 columns at the top of the page then 3 columns underneath then finally going to a single column for the footer very easily. Doing these things in manual CSS if you don't know about all the various browser quirks and tricks can be a pain.

Grids are fundamentally the exact opposite of good design. They are a cludge to make it easier to lay things out the way you want, but do so by tightly coupling content and presentation. I see it advocated too, but not by design gurus, by people who want to just have it work and don't care about doing things correctly or having reusable, modular components.

> Grids are fundamentally the exact opposite of good design.

As a former designer, I cannot overstress how stupid this sounds. It's the equivalent of a designer walking up to a bunch of programmers and saying "what's the big deal with functions?" Some things are opinion, and some things are just wrong. This is the latter.

Here's the longer response:

Grids are fundamental to good design. Have you ever wondered why some sites just look right? GRIDS. Ever noticed how many people try to emulate famous designs but never seem to get it quite right? What are they missing? GRIDS. If you start designing without a grid, guess what? You've already resigned yourself to mediocrity, even if you don't realize it. Here's an analogy: you are building a house, and you decide to "just wing it" with the foundation and fix it as required as you go along. You have already failed before you even started. The grid is the design equivalent of a home's foundation. Everything you design will build on top of that grid.

When you say things like

> I see it advocated too, but not by design gurus

there's really no coherent response you will get except NO. STUPID STUPID STUPID.

Edit: Here's what one of my designer friends responded with: "And it's always good to write a line of code (at least) twice, in case it isn't noticed the first time."

And no, I won't show you an example of a guru who advocates grids. Stay ignorant.

Re: Bootstrap 2.2.0 released

#80

Post by papsosouid »

egonschiele wrote: post #79
papsosouid wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grids are fundamentally the exact opposite of good design. They are a cludge to make it easier to lay things out the way you want, but do so by tightly coupling content and presentation. I see it advocated too, but not by design gurus, by people who want to just have it work and don't care about doing things correctly or having reusable, modular components.

> Grids are fundamentally the exact opposite of good design. As a former designer, I cannot overstress how stupid this sounds. It's the equivalent of a designer walking up to a bunch of programmers and saying "what's the big deal with functions?" Some things are opinion, and some things are just wrong. This is the latter. Here's the longer response: Grids are fundamental to good design. Have you ever wondered why som…

Show me a respected design authority who advocates grids then. "STUPID STUPID STUPID" is not an argument. The fact is, grids tie content to presentation, and are entirely unnecessary. The fact that you think grids is the reason some websites look right and others look wrong is astoundingly ignorant.
Post reply on HN