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

121–130 of 216 posts

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#121

Post by otis_inf »

Implicated wrote: post #113
otis_inf wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, I used 'Palas' as a base template for my company's site. Support is in general good, I'd say: lots of elements are worked out so you can build your layout with building blocks very rapidly, and configurability is often high. You still need to do work if you want to have your site look like something unique, but in general these templates are a great way to start.

And they are the same thing, templates from bootstrap or from 3rd parties: you get an example site with several pages, pages with building blocks on them, less based customization css on top of bootstrap, documentation which block does what so it's easy to find where to customize e.g. a header color / font.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#122

Post by sooheon »

coldtea wrote: post #102
Kiro wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. What about em?

Em (which we use to have for lots of years now IIRC), is the same thing, but instead of being responsive to the top level font size, they are responsive to their first sized parent. So, inside a DIV with font-size: XXpx, em sized sub-elements will change size with respect to XX etc. So to size them you have to target their px-sized-parents across your document. Whereas rem sized items you control from a central singl…

Thanks for this simple explanation.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#123

Post by hit8run »

zecho wrote: post #117
joshburgess wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Angular by default is not using jQuery. They have a convenience layer that is similar to the jQuery-API called jqLight. But if you use Angular in the right way you usually don't need to access the DOM with these methods.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#124

Post by mdo »

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?

No plans :).

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#125

Post by zecho »

wnevets wrote: post #46

>Moved from Less to Sass. what was the motivation for the switch?

From mdo's answer in the Slack chatroom:

> more people use SCSS, libsass is crazy fast, syntax is more explicitly clear, and I'm lazy and use SCSS at GitHub

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#126

Post by mdo »

Sakes wrote: post #28

Flex! fantastic. I have no opinion but am curious about why you bailed on Less and committed to Sass. If you see this, can you explain?

Happy to explain!

- Sass has a larger community of developers. - Sass seems to be iterating as a tool faster than Less. - Sass is really similar to Less, so it's an easier transition to make than jumping right to PostCSS. - LibSass (the C implementation of the traditional Ruby Sass) is super fast, faster than Less in my casual tests).

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#127

Post by mdo »

zecho wrote: post #125
wnevets wrote: post #46

>Moved from Less to Sass. what was the motivation for the switch?

From mdo's answer in the Slack chatroom: > more people use SCSS, libsass is crazy fast, syntax is more explicitly clear, and I'm lazy and use SCSS at GitHub

Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10088173.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#128

Post by sologoub »

hliyan wrote: post #6

Also launching official bootstrap themes: http://themes.getbootstrap.com/collections/all Edit: unfortunately though, the 'dashboard' theme is not fully responsive (tables (order history) in mobile view)

On iPhone, the marketing theme loads way zoomed in. Doesn't seem intentional, so probably a bug.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#129

Post by hit8run »

arrmn wrote: post #114
hit8run wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Indeed an interesting tool. If one keeps the site structure simple enough I think that the no-framework way might fit best. One doesn't have to go as far as for example this site http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com but it made me think about minimalistic css while keeping great device support.

I recently read the blog (http://.ws) of Adam Morse (http://mrmrs.cc) and it gave me some inspiration for my own css stuff.

Re: Bootstrap 4 alpha

#130

Post by meerita »

jscheel wrote: post #30
o_____________o wrote: post #9

They seem pretty confident about Sass; It seems outdated and clunky to me, 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. By contrast, PostCSS is faster and has massive adoption. Seems like the way forward. Anybody think this is wrong? > PostCSS can do the same work as preprocessors like Sass, Less, and Stylus. But Pos…

I've been hearing a lot of noise about that. As a person who went from LESS to SCSS, is there any reason I should again switch my focus to PostCSS?

CSS shouldn't be so complicated. It's all about selector simplicity, scalability. If you make too complicated sass, css or less, you're doing probably wrong.
Post reply on HN