91–100 of 149 posts
First of all, I want to say that I like the vibrant colors, small size, and checkable buttons. Smaller (and JS-less) CSS frameworks is something that I've been crusading for for years now. Secondly, I'm the creator of Min ( http://minfwk.com ), a fellow small CSS framework. Min is only 995 bytes - 5 times smaller. It also is more widely used, has feature parity with Bootstrap through the Min Bootstrap plugin, support…
First of all, I want to say that I like the vibrant colors, small size, and checkable buttons. Smaller (and JS-less) CSS frameworks is something that I've been crusading for for years now. Secondly, I'm the creator of Min ( http://minfwk.com ), a fellow small CSS framework. Min is only 995 bytes - 5 times smaller. It also is more widely used, has feature parity with Bootstrap through the Min Bootstrap plugin, support…
Your edit is just to try and convince others and yourself that you weren't being a complete tool. (You were).
It seems you had no other intention in your comment than to belittle the authors work and puff yourself up. If you actually thought you could learn something from the author you would have treated them with some degree of respect.
First of all, I want to say that I like the vibrant colors, small size, and checkable buttons. Smaller (and JS-less) CSS frameworks is something that I've been crusading for for years now. Secondly, I'm the creator of Min ( http://minfwk.com ), a fellow small CSS framework. Min is only 995 bytes - 5 times smaller. It also is more widely used, has feature parity with Bootstrap through the Min Bootstrap plugin, support…
I've got no horse in this race though
First of all, I want to say that I like the vibrant colors, small size, and checkable buttons. Smaller (and JS-less) CSS frameworks is something that I've been crusading for for years now. Secondly, I'm the creator of Min ( http://minfwk.com ), a fellow small CSS framework. Min is only 995 bytes - 5 times smaller. It also is more widely used, has feature parity with Bootstrap through the Min Bootstrap plugin, support…
One answer might be that they sell it a bit better through site design and example. I've got no horse in this race though
First of all, I want to say that I like the vibrant colors, small size, and checkable buttons. Smaller (and JS-less) CSS frameworks is something that I've been crusading for for years now. Secondly, I'm the creator of Min ( http://minfwk.com ), a fellow small CSS framework. Min is only 995 bytes - 5 times smaller. It also is more widely used, has feature parity with Bootstrap through the Min Bootstrap plugin, support…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its always good to have options. As much as I'm supportive of promoting your own work its a little bit in bad taste to smash and promote your project one a submission like this.
Whoops. I didn't mean it in a negative way - I was hoping that the creator could mention some other advantages of using Picnic.css that I missed. I've edited the comment to focus less on the downsides of Picnic and instead focus on the differences of Picnic and Min.
The Picnic thing has "subtle animated buttons" which may be appealing to some looking for a certain design edge out of the box.
Personally I roll my own everything, I don't use grids or bootstrap, so not sure why I'm even looking at this thread.
I'm not the typical frontend developer though apparently. Div class="row" is not something you'll see in my code, ever. I'm not going back to table layouts by faking rows and columns with divs. That to me is working against the grain of HTML and CSS. When you start working *with" the grain, with the native behaviour of HTML elements, suddenly a lot more is possible and easier to accomplish when it comes to responsiveness and compatibility. But anyway.. carry on with your "not table based" layouts!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoops. I didn't mean it in a negative way - I was hoping that the creator could mention some other advantages of using Picnic.css that I missed. I've edited the comment to focus less on the downsides of Picnic and instead focus on the differences of Picnic and Min.
You mention IE5.5 support four times on your homepage. Nobody is using IE5.5 anymore, so that's not an attractive selling point, and slightly odd that you think it might be a selling point. The Picnic thing has "subtle animated buttons" which may be appealing to some looking for a certain design edge out of the box. Personally I roll my own everything, I don't use grids or bootstrap, so not sure why I'm even looking…
* Although "nobody" (if parts of China and governments are nobody) uses IE5.5, plenty use IE6, IE7, and IE8, which aren't supported by many CSS frameworks.
* Min also has subtle animations - only of background color though. I used to have more 3D-looking buttons but those were criticized for being too prescriptive - which I agree with; IMHO you shouldn't be able to tell what CSS framework a site uses by looking at it.
* You have a really interesting point about grid systems and table-based layouts. That's something I'll have to come back to when I'm slightly more awake.
First of all, I want to say that I like the vibrant colors, small size, and checkable buttons. Smaller (and JS-less) CSS frameworks is something that I've been crusading for for years now. Secondly, I'm the creator of Min ( http://minfwk.com ), a fellow small CSS framework. Min is only 995 bytes - 5 times smaller. It also is more widely used, has feature parity with Bootstrap through the Min Bootstrap plugin, support…
This is extremely tacky. Of course you meant to put the framework down - your first statement shows you think this is a competition, and you don't want to "lose" Your edit is just to try and convince others and yourself that you weren't being a complete tool. (You were). It seems you had no other intention in your comment than to belittle the authors work and puff yourself up. If you actually thought you could learn…
Good now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a big fan of Min: http://minfwk.com/ 995 bytes!
Thanks! I'm the creator of Min. Are there any suggestions or improvements you have?
As a branding thing, I'd change that URL. I get that it's short but minfwk.com doesn't really look like "Min Framework" to me. It just looks like a bunch of letters. A domain like mincss.com, getmin.com, minframework.com or something more legible would be better.
I've tried to keep it as tiny as possible with just under 3kb when gzipped. What would you change? What would you add? Any feedback or pull request is greatly welcome! MIT Licensed