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

Bootstrap 4 alpha

blog.getbootstrap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 216 posts

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#111

Post by jscheel »

AhtiK wrote: post #60
jscheel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran into significant issues with LESS that forced me to switch. I haven't seen any with SCSS, so that's the question. Is it just another new fad, or have people exhibited a real need for switching?

would you mind sharing what were the significant issues with LESS? I'm using LESS and just wondering what I might be missing.

Well, I built a theming engine that utilized LESS in combination with a whole host of other stuff. It became a big problem there, but that's not really a use-case that is applicable to most. For more common issues, the way LESS does guarded mixins was super annoying, the breaking changes in minor version release, etc.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#112

Post by rubiquity »

xrstf wrote: post #93
pyre wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in part because it's always going to be the only Ruby dependency in any of my projects. The Javascript parser never found parity from what I know. Now that libsass (C or C++ implementation) has matured, the Ruby dependency is not necessary. I always resented Sass (vs. Less) a bit because of the Ruby dependency (in projects not using Ruby otherwise). Now that you can link against libsass, I don't feel like that's an…

Yeah I really love how I now not only need Node and npm, but also gcc to install/build a frickin' web project. Because f*ck the platform-independence we got with Node, who cares if a simple `npm install` takes 30 minutes to complete.

You would need GCC to install Node anyway. Not to mention the fact that you probably have GCC or Clang already anyway...

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#113

Post by Implicated »

otis_inf wrote: post #110
tajano wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$99 to roll out an internal dashboard in hours, so my engineers can focus on more important things? Yes please. If this is for your personal webpage, $99 might be too much. If this is for your business, and $99 can save you more than an hour or two of employee time, it's a steal.

There are much cheaper, well made templates available for bootstrap, e.g.: http://themeforest.net/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=bootstrap

Not the same thing.

Have you tried to use any of these?

How is their support?

Documentation?

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#114

Post by arrmn »

hit8run wrote: post #55
zzalpha wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, if it means rapidly putting together a high-quality, cross-browser, responsive website with little effort, I'll accept a little bloat. The savings in developer time is more than worth it, IMO. Doubly so given how much of that CSS and JS is likely cached.

For prototyping this is okay. But for production I try to keep bloat as low as possible. I see this as service to my customers. A fat ui framework like this adds its very own complexity and as soon as you want to go out of the crud box you will have to add your own styles anyway.

I try to get my bloat down, I just load the components which I'm going to use (most of the time it's the grid).

There are some tools like purifycss [1] which can delete unused css

1: https://github.com/purifycss/purifycss

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#115

Post by mkawia »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #63
bluetidepro wrote: post #22

One amazing thing to note is that in v3.3.5 (last stable) bootstrap.min.css was at ~123kb. The new 4.0.0 alpha bootstrap.min.css is at ~88kb. WOW. That's just amazing. Congrats to everyone who worked on this project. I'm always so impressed with the work done on it! Also, I want to add, I don't care where you land on the side of the debate whether to use Bootstrap or not, there is some very smart minds behind the pro…

>>> I don't care where you land on the side of the debate whether to use Bootstrap or not. I used to be totally against Bootstrap for a myriad of reasons. Then I got hired to build a fairly complex transactional application for a large health care organization under a tight schedule. Bootstrap allowed me to get a UI up and running super fast with all the components I needed, out of the box. It literally saved me hund…

Exactly! if you are building like some custom CRM-ish application ,Bootstrap is really helpful.

Your users(and clients) won't care that the buttons are not flat or that it looks like many other applications ,if anything that's a positive if you build a UI components like Navbars they's used

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#116

Post by gpmcadam »

meerita wrote: post #81
mdo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for noticing! :) I spent a lot of time deleting stuff lol. Still more to optimize around though as we work through the alphas.

Any plan to support BEM?

Mentioned on github before https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/9366#issuecomment-2...

Personally I hope they never impose such an awkward naming convention.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#117

Post by zecho »

joshburgess wrote: post #53
lol768 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the comment in the starter template isn't outdated, jQuery is still required. http://v4-alpha.getbootstrap.com/getting-started/introductio...

Booooooooooo. Bootstrap is the most popular CSS/UI framework on the planet. I don't get why they continue to depend on jQuery while most modern app frameworks are abandoning it...

Like which? Ember continues to depend on it. Angular uses a lightweight version. I don't think there's a lot of interest in reinventing the wheel as far as cross-browser JS libraries go.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#119

Post by chillingeffect »

xrstf wrote: post #93
pyre wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in part because it's always going to be the only Ruby dependency in any of my projects. The Javascript parser never found parity from what I know. Now that libsass (C or C++ implementation) has matured, the Ruby dependency is not necessary. I always resented Sass (vs. Less) a bit because of the Ruby dependency (in projects not using Ruby otherwise). Now that you can link against libsass, I don't feel like that's an…

Yeah I really love how I now not only need Node and npm, but also gcc to install/build a frickin' web project. Because f*ck the platform-independence we got with Node, who cares if a simple `npm install` takes 30 minutes to complete.

I don't use it, so I don't know, but I'm just wondering, why is it necessary to use gcc to use libsass? Isn't there a PPA for it? Would a PPA be the proper way to distrib what sounds like a really valuable program? Thank you.
Post reply on HN