71–80 of 80 posts
To me, the most interesting part of this is the switch to Zepto. Can people weigh in on its performance over jQuery, and the overall tradeoffs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any specifics on why you consider Bootstrap more opinionated? I've used both on a few different sites and haven't really noticed this.
Bootstrap styles are deeply baked in. Changing the variables file isn't enough if you want a non-bootstrappy looking site. Foundation's styles are easier to override and to get the look you want. Bootstrap's eco system is huge. If I had to use one, it would be Bootstrap. Since I can choose either, I use Bootstrap most of the time and Foundation when I need more control.
For the variable parts, thats another myth: you can override variables easily.
I have nothing against Foundation, but to me, all the frameworks claim silly things to gain developers and developers aren't that kind of stupid consumer.
Just bring the facts, let the devs decide.
seems kinda of a problem that "The Grid, Layout/UI and JS", aren't compatible with IE8 and bellow no?. http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/support.html
To me, the most interesting part of this is the switch to Zepto. Can people weigh in on its performance over jQuery, and the overall tradeoffs?
Of course this means zepto is a lot smaller than jQuery. Zepto is 47k unminified [1], jQuery is 78k [2]
[1] http://zeptojs.com/#download [2] http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.9.1.js
seems kinda of a problem that "The Grid, Layout/UI and JS", aren't compatible with IE8 and bellow no?. http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/support.html
If it gets the mobile style then that's not so bad. If it all goes a bit Picasso then that's a problem.
What's the advantage of using Foundation over Bootstrap?
Apps using Bootstrap benefit from the larger community of 3rd party controls and libraries and, why not, from a consistent UI look that I don't have to mess with (no, I don't mind that my buttons look like everyone else's, I quite enjoy it actually).
Sites using Foundation benefit more from the mobile-first approach (Bootstrap is indeed catching up to this) and from easier customization (SCSS) and blander default styles, leading to a more distinctive look.
Is there something like wrapbootstrap.com for Foundation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, the templates are not exhibiting how to avoid presentational classes. This may be a case where small-scope examples are poorly suited to real-world implementation, but I'll take a quick stab at moving to more descriptive (dare I say semantic) class names. ------ EXAMPLE: http://foundation.zurb.com/page-templates4/blog.html Line 45: CSS: .row .large-9 { position: relative; width: 75%; } .row .columns { positio…
The quick answer is (feel free to disagree!), this is a great way to style a blog or microsite, but quickly gets out of hand. Using presentational classes bloats your markup but the size of your CSS assets will remain relatively constant, while using semantic class names requires writing new CSS for each new piece of content. The return you get on sacrificing some legibility in your markup increases with the size of…