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

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#121

Post by webjunkie »

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…

Especially with a large, content-driven site, sooner or later you can make use of every single one of Bootstrap's features. I wrote code for grids and columns dozens of times myself. Each project had new requirements but somehow the core was always the same. A button here, style the list there, the headings don't work bla bla bla. With Bootstrap you can start right away because everything is already there for you. People underestimate that fact and value "lean and simple" more.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#122

Post by owenversteeg »

stephen_g wrote: post #105
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

How do you define 'near feature parity'? From that page, Min doesn't appear to have anything like the dropdowns, button groups, tabs, more than half the navbar options, pagination, progress bars, etc. that Bootstrap has... It could certainly be useful, but doesn't appear to me to be anywhere close to feature parity.

Min has dropdowns and all of Bootstrap's navbar options. You'll just have to use the navbar plugin (owenversteeg/min-navbar-plugin) Progress bars, pagination, and button groups are all coming for Min 2 or Min 2.5, although demand for them is very low.

If you have a specific feature you'd like implemented, just open an issue.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#124

Post by [deleted] »

thatthatis wrote: post #100

Bootstrap raised the lowest common denominator from a 2 to about 35. You can still put together a horrid UI with bad spacing and mismatched fonts, but you have to go out of your way to get UI quality below 20. If you have the skills to write 90+ UIs from scratch, you probably get little out of bootstrap, unless you're rapidly prototyping and need a 65% UI in four hours. It's a great tool that improved both the minimu…

[deleted]

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#125

Post by cvrebert »

owenversteeg wrote: post #120
lowboy wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Re (2): That error message is a tad terse; the majority of Bootstrap is pure CSS and doesn't require any JS.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#126

Post by lowboy »

owenversteeg wrote: post #120
lowboy wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1. So you've matched a number of good features that Bootstrap has, but you seem to be missing:

- Responsive grid control based on browser size (.col-md, -sm, -xsm, -lg)

- Nestable grids (apparently)

- Fluid container

- Offsetting columns

- Column ordering

- Subheading/secondary heading text

- Lead body copy

- Text alignment classes

- Blockquote styling

- List styling (no discs, inline)

- Description elements (dl/dt/dd)

- Code/pre formatting

- Various table styles

- Responsive tables

And that's just going halfway down Bootstrap's css documentation page without touching any of the 20 or so css components or the the 12 or so js modules that Bootstrap provides. You personally might not need even 90% of them, but you cannot make the claim that Min has anywhere near the features of Bootstrap. It's disingenuous. I wouldn't make the claim for YUI's Pure[0], and it's a similarly-scoped framework. In fact, that's one of the selling points to a minimal framework - it isn't "bloated".

2. That's because that example page requires jQuery, just like many other sites require jQuery. I've used Bootstrap several times as just a CSS framework, and it works well. You obviously can't use any js modules, as all of them depend on jQ, but none of the pure-css modules do.

3. I have built custom versions of Bootstrap, so yes I would do it. I'd wager most people wouldn't, but I don't know if I see that as a fault of Bootstrap's. I applaud you encouraging modularity, and I wish that more people would go that route with Bootstrap.

Normalize is intended to give consistent results across browsers. If you've accounted for all of the discrepancies between browsers, then that's great! I'd wager that there are some cases that you haven't caught.

I understand where you're coming from wrt. monolithic frameworks, and I do wish more people would take the time to slim down their libraries. Hell, I wrote a grunt plugin[1] that looks at a site's outputted js and determines a minimal build of Lo-Dash[2], and it's only 10kB gzipped.

[0]: http://purecss.io/

[1]: https://github.com/jjt/grunt-lodash-autobuild

[2]: http://lodash.com/

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#127

Post by mdo »

amouat wrote: post #115
ereckers wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

We've not changed anything. Unsure what you saw, but the examples' HTML has never been minified.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#128

Post by noir_lord »

ptr wrote: post #116
kabdib wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have a look (if you haven't already seen it) at the SB-Admin theme (v1 and v2), v1 in particular is just a very thing wrapper over stock bootstrap (so much so you can just swap out the core js and css as they get released).

It adds a very dashboard-esque appearance without any bloat.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#129

Post by mcallan83 »

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 use Bootstrap without jQuery all the time, so that is not true. I also make custom builds for just the stuff I need to keep file size down. Anyways, I just looked at Min and was a bit disappointed. The demo page has the look and feel of a framework that might have existed 10 years ago -- it doesn't look polished at all and I would never even attempt to try it out based on that demo. The 2 sites built with the framework also look about 10 years old. I realize it is a lightweight framework, but so is Pure and Topcoat, and their examples look a lot better. Sure they may be a bit bigger than 995 bytes, but with high speed internet and LTE, that is less important than it was in the past. I'd rather have a larger CSS file and a better looking site.

Re: Bootstrap 3.1 released

#130

Post by owenversteeg »

mcallan83 wrote: post #129
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 use Bootstrap without jQuery all the time, so that is not true. I also make custom builds for just the stuff I need to keep file size down. Anyways, I just looked at Min and was a bit disappointed. The demo page has the look and feel of a framework that might have existed 10 years ago -- it doesn't look polished at all and I would never even attempt to try it out based on that demo. The 2 sites built with the frame…

Regarding jQuery, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it required for dropdowns and responsive navbars?

Regarding Min, I'm wondering what you think looks 2004-ish about it. If it's the buttons, those are in for a change; please cast your vote in the button design thread here: https://github.com/OwenVersteeg/min/issues/6 If it's anything else, just let me know (via an issue or a comment) and I can fix it. I'm always open to feedback.

Also, a substantial portion of people still have slow internet speeds (example: me.) It's common knowledge that if a website is too slow people will just leave, and for lots of websites an extra few percent of users would make a difference.

Post reply on HN