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

Bootstrap 3.1 released

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#111

Post by lowboy »

owenversteeg wrote: post #103
freshyill wrote: post #43

Question: If you were developing a large, content-driven site, would you bother with Bootstrap? Bootstrap seemed a bit like overkill when I had to use it in my old job. The CSS and markup seemed excessive, and the strict JS was kind of a pain to deal with. I know I can get something that looks half-decent up and running quickly with it, but if I'm not planning to take any visual design from it, is there much of an ad…

Answer: You wouldn't. Bootstrap's extremely bloated, requires jQuery, and has a huge (required) JS file. Choose a small, leaner CSS framework, like Min - only 995 bytes and it is near feature parity with Bootstrap. http://minfwk.com

I disagree with your post.

1. As stephen_g said, Min is nowhere near feature parity with Bootstrap.

2. IIRC, Bootstrap doesn't need jQuery, or its own js if all you want is a css framework.

3. You can make a custom build of Bootstrap to cut out the cruft that you don't need.

I like minimal frameworks (YUI's Pure is one of my favs), but 12-column layouts are generally superior than 10-column layouts, unless you desperately need 5 equal columns for your site.

I see that you wrote Min - I'd strongly consider changing your grids to 12 col. More divisors, and it's somewhat of an industry standard. Also, no normalize.css?

Lastly, you'll probably have a better adoption rate for your framework if you tone down the attitude and false claims. There's just no need for it.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#113

Post by lowboy »

zachlatta wrote: post #81
steveklabnik wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been work to re-write sass in C (or C++), preliminary reports showed it being 4,000x faster, IIRC.

https://github.com/hcatlin/libsass

+1 for libsass. I started using Gulp instead of Grunt for a project, and gulp-sass uses libsass. My compilation times are now sometimes sub-millisecond (albeit with only 500 lines of scss spread across 4-5 files).

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#114

Post by lowboy »

riffraff wrote: post #44
Trufa wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason I chose LESS was because of bootstrap support, I'm extremely happy with it and can't believe I didn't start with it before. I'll see how this port goes, but I've read some good stuff about SASS: http://css-tricks.com/sass-vs-less/ Any other points anyone can make for SASS against LESS?

I think since that article came out sass included a new very nice feature in the form of mixins[0]. Also, Compass[1] is awesome when working with sass, but I don't know if there is a less equivalent. [0] http://sass-lang.com/guide#6 [1] http://compass-style.org/

I used to be a proponent of Compass, but I started using Bourbon[0] and Neat[1] and enjoy them more. They don't require a project definition, nor do they provide a utility to compile Sass, they're just a mixin library. And that suits me.

[0] http://bourbon.io

[1] http://neat.bourbon.io

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#115

Post by amouat »

ereckers wrote: post #96
amouat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I missing something, or do they minify the example code? Why do they do that? Is there an easier to copy/edit version somewhere?

I think Bootsrap is minified, but the HTML and custom CSS for each example is available.

I phrased it badly when I said "minified". The HTML is available, but it's not nicely formatted - all the whitespace is gone etc. I understand this saves a few bytes but it makes life harder for anyone that tries to edit it.

It seems so strange to me that no-one else is complaining that I wonder if a nicely formatted version is available and I'm being stupid.

EDIT: This seems to have changed! Either I did something really stupid before or they have updated the HTML for the examples.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#116

Post by ptr »

kabdib wrote: post #93
noir_lord wrote: post #13

I absolutely adore Bootstrap (and v3 was a big upgrade). As a primarily backend developer with mediocre at best front end knowledge (and terrible design sense) it is an absolute joy to work with. EDIT: Also reading the blog post they moved license to MIT, this makes me a happy bunny as well.

I've been using Bootstrap 3 for about three months, and to this kernel hacker new to PHP and web development (for internal apps), it's great. I can do UI that isn't a total train-wreck; what I come up with ain't perfect, but it gets the message across.

This. But why limit it to internal apps? I do b2b solutions and the services I write using Bootstrap has higher UX quality than what people there are used to. Sometimes I just change the background image and keep the default Bootstrap look.

Also, it's so much fun picking out components and putting them together to make it looke awesome.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#117

Post by andyhmltn »

owenversteeg wrote: post #102

Personally, I don't like Bootstrap. It's difficult to modify, requires jQuery and its own massive JS file, and is huge. Compare that to Min, the extremely small (995 bytes) CSS framework. It has a Bootstrap to Min converter, has near-feature parity with Bootstrap, and is very easy to use. http://minfwk.com (Disclaimer: I wrote Min.)

>It's difficult to modify The CSS is easy to change IMO. Because you can just override it. >requires jQuery and its own massive JS file, and is huge. Fair point on jQuery but you can use the customiser to get rid of most of the JS you won't use

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#118

Post by andyhmltn »

Fairly painless upgrade as well. We are using TWBS 3.0 on an internal admin system. I just dropped the new bootstrap-sass gem into rails and it was done. There are a few things that needed to be changed:

1) The button text is now huge 2) For some reason the forms all screwed up when using a:

Name

Layout

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#119

Post by Flenser »

Bahamut wrote: post #94
freshyill wrote: post #43

Question: If you were developing a large, content-driven site, would you bother with Bootstrap? Bootstrap seemed a bit like overkill when I had to use it in my old job. The CSS and markup seemed excessive, and the strict JS was kind of a pain to deal with. I know I can get something that looks half-decent up and running quickly with it, but if I'm not planning to take any visual design from it, is there much of an ad…

If you want to avoid polluting the HTML too much, you could always use the mixins/classes from the LESS or SASS files ( https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap-sass for SASS). Even as a frontend developer who knows CSS pretty well, I like using Bootstrap. It lets me focus on more important things. For my workplace, the UI team will use a bit from Bootstrap, more if we're under time pressure to finish a project. They rather…

I just wish there was a bootstrap-sass conversion that used silent classes everywhere so I could @extend my own classes to match bootstrap without having to bring in all of bootstrap. I've had to write a parser (based on https://npmjs.org/package/css ) to convert any css file to an scss file with all .classes converted to %partials so it produces no output until you @extend a class from one of the partials.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#120

Post by owenversteeg »

lowboy wrote: post #111
owenversteeg wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Answer: You wouldn't. Bootstrap's extremely bloated, requires jQuery, and has a huge (required) JS file. Choose a small, leaner CSS framework, like Min - only 995 bytes and it is near feature parity with Bootstrap. http://minfwk.com

I disagree with your post. 1. As stephen_g said, Min is nowhere near feature parity with Bootstrap. 2. IIRC, Bootstrap doesn't need jQuery, or its own js if all you want is a css framework. 3. You can make a custom build of Bootstrap to cut out the cruft that you don't need. I like minimal frameworks (YUI's Pure is one of my favs), but 12-column layouts are generally superior than 10-column layouts, unless you desper…

1. Min has dropdowns and all of Bootstrap's navbar options. Progress bars, pagination, and button groups are all coming for Min 2 or Min 2.5, although demand for them is very low.

2. Nope, Bootstrap requires jQuery. This is the exact error message I get trying to run an official Bootstrap example page without jQuery:

"Error: Bootstrap requires jQuery"

3. Sure, but will you? That's a common argument against Min, but I rarely find anyone willing to modify their download of Bootstrap for two reasons: 1) No CDN and 2) They usually need to add something later and don't know why it doesn't work. Min also provides a "custom build" option which is in fact encouraged - but people ignore it for the two reasons above.

Good point about 12 columns; I've opened an [issue](https://github.com/OwenVersteeg/min/issues/16).

Regarding normalize.css - I don't really see why I'd need it. Min already does many things it does and they work fine; in fact, Min works in Internet Explorer 5.5 and up.

Post reply on HN