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

Bootstrap 3.2.0 released

blog.getbootstrap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Bootstrap 3.2.0 released

#31

Post by wuliwong »

lcnmrn wrote: post #2

Why do you need Bootstrap? You can write a grid system in less than 10 lines of code with Sass. You can also do a typographic mixin in 5 lines of code then customise it as you need. You can also have a icon web font set only for tag in 5 lines of code. What else is there? Forms. You can reset the forms in another 5 lines of code then add stuff for [type=submit] and so on. Why do you need thousands of lines of code wh…

All this bootstrap hate is mind numbing. The simple fact is, that I was able to build a site in ONE NIGHT after work using bootstrap as the basis for my design. Using anything less featured (and less familiar to me) than Bootstrap would have added enormous amounts of time before I could release. The site in question was able to get some traction because of its timely release and I am iterating on that now and growing.

The idea that using Bootstrap cost me time is objectively wrong, as is that of it costing me money. Currently, my minified CSS and javascript from bootstrap is not affecting the page load time in any significant way. For me, using Bootstrap for MVPs has proved supremely useful, time and time again. I would not be as bold as you and claim my experience is applicable to everyone, but it is obviously very beneficial for me.

Something not often considered by the haters is that most of the time, the customers that the MVP is directed at have no clue about Bootstrap. Unless I'm building something for developers, it's usually not something they have seen before. I've actually gotten many compliments on design, when it was largely just Bootstrap's CSS.

Further, putting some structure in for SASS typography isn't the same as creating good typography. I've found it extremely difficult to create readable, custom typography in the past and I'm quite sure I am not alone.

Your "framework" gives me some kind of grid system, some structure that I can go out and create my own typography system inside of and some kind of functionality to "reset" forms. And then I can add "stuff for [type=submit]". GREAT.

Things I used from Bootstrap 3 in my MVP created in one night:

1. Responsive grid system. 2. Typography 3. Colors 4. Notifications 5. Forms 6. Buttons 7. Modals 8. Panels 9. Wells 10. Image helper classes 11. Navigation Bar 12. Pagination 13. Popovers 14. Media Objects

Your idea for replacing Bootstrap falls so short of the mark it is laughable.

Re: Bootstrap 3.2.0 released

#32

Post by wuliwong »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #20
deedubaya wrote: post #6

Bootstrap, like jQuery, was a great thing at one time. It still is a great thing to some people. Whenever I see default Bootstrap styles out in the wild though, I get pretty disgusted. Never trust a company that uses default Bootstrap styles in their production apps. It just shouts "I don't care" or "I don't know any better."

Whenever an iPhone or Android app doesn't follow the standard styling for the platform -- aka if it looks different -- complaints flood in. Whenever a web app doesn't look different, complaints flood in. Consistent styling on disparate web pages is a good thing, in my optinion.

Yea, it is interesting isn't it. Have you ever come across anyone trying to explain why? I've wondered but haven't done any research.

Re: Bootstrap 3.2.0 released

#34

Post by andybak »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #28
andybak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or "they invested time in their product rather choosing to reinvent the wheel on their marketing website". Sounds like a pretty positive indicator to me.

I don't like it when people invoke "don't reinvent the wheel". Yes, if you're reimplementing standard library functionality, then you could talk about reinventing the wheel. But a lot of the time it really means "Let frameworks do everything for you." Don't reinvent the wheel, but feel free to reimplement subsets of the wheel that aren't all too tailored to your purpose. In fact, if you're a programmer, you probably…

> Let frameworks do everything for you

I'm happy to let a framework do everything for me - assuming the 'everything' you speak of is done well.

Implicit in your statement is an assumption that this will be bad - I'm not disagreeing that there are downsides, but please don't hide these inside implied reasons. Bring them out and let's debate them explicitly.

Re: Bootstrap 3.2.0 released

#35

Post by andybak »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #20
deedubaya wrote: post #6

Bootstrap, like jQuery, was a great thing at one time. It still is a great thing to some people. Whenever I see default Bootstrap styles out in the wild though, I get pretty disgusted. Never trust a company that uses default Bootstrap styles in their production apps. It just shouts "I don't care" or "I don't know any better."

Whenever an iPhone or Android app doesn't follow the standard styling for the platform -- aka if it looks different -- complaints flood in. Whenever a web app doesn't look different, complaints flood in. Consistent styling on disparate web pages is a good thing, in my optinion.

There's nothing more loathsome to my eye than an 'innovative' user-interface produced by someone who thinks creativity trumps UX.

The number of times I want to be 'surprised and delighted' by an interface can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Most of the time I'm trying to achieve something other than appreciate the genius of the designer involved.

Re: Bootstrap 3.2.0 released

#36

Post by andybak »

chdir wrote: post #25
deedubaya wrote: post #6

Bootstrap, like jQuery, was a great thing at one time. It still is a great thing to some people. Whenever I see default Bootstrap styles out in the wild though, I get pretty disgusted. Never trust a company that uses default Bootstrap styles in their production apps. It just shouts "I don't care" or "I don't know any better."

Re-inventing the wheel is your thing then so be it. Why stop at bootstrap, stop trusting all those using jQuery too.

Why stop there? Be suspicious of existing programming languages and network protocols. Let's write assembly and push raw bits over the wire.

Reductio ad absurdum...

Re: Bootstrap 3.2.0 released

#37

Post by mdo »

seer wrote: post #26
pepijndevos wrote: post #24

What is the video doing there...

It's probably a demonstration how their new responsive embeds work.

Actually I haven't updated the blog to use that yet. We just include videos with every single release. Don't try to draw a particular conclusion—it's mostly just for fun :).

Re: Bootstrap 3.2.0 released

#39

Post by alttab »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #28
andybak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or "they invested time in their product rather choosing to reinvent the wheel on their marketing website". Sounds like a pretty positive indicator to me.

I don't like it when people invoke "don't reinvent the wheel". Yes, if you're reimplementing standard library functionality, then you could talk about reinventing the wheel. But a lot of the time it really means "Let frameworks do everything for you." Don't reinvent the wheel, but feel free to reimplement subsets of the wheel that aren't all too tailored to your purpose. In fact, if you're a programmer, you probably…

Letting frameworks do everything for you usually means you're not doing anything interesting.

For many products however, these days an "interesting" interface doesn't sell it unless you are pinterest or something. 99% of the time, users are at your page/app for some level of function. Rarely is the function essentially the form.

Re: Bootstrap 3.2.0 released

#40

Post by alttab »

andybak wrote: post #36
chdir wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-inventing the wheel is your thing then so be it. Why stop at bootstrap, stop trusting all those using jQuery too.

Why stop there? Be suspicious of existing programming languages and network protocols. Let's write assembly and push raw bits over the wire. Reductio ad absurdum...

You still need to compile the assembly. Do you trust your compiler?
Post reply on HN