3 ms·

Looks good and seems well built. However - like Bootstrap - it has this kind of mark-up that I'm starting to strongly dislike: <div class="ms-Grid-col ms-u

Looks good and seems well built. However - like Bootstrap - it has this kind of mark-up that I'm starting to strongly dislike: <div class="ms-Grid-col ms-u-sm6 ms-u-md8 ms-u-lg10">Second</div> I get that this - like Bootstrap - is nice to get a quick start and start deploying but, as thing grows, it gets harder and harder to maintain. I'm not all for a semantics panacea but this is hard to read and, I imagine, harder for the browser to parse. Nowadays, I'd rather be very dumb with CSS (just one class) and let SASS handle the complexity. In this case, I'd create a class with an adequate and meaningful name and, in SASS, do the composition they're doing in the class attribute - @extend the needed column definitions per media-query. I like the idea of having the class/style composition duty done at SASS compile time and not by the browser at runtime.

warfangle 11y ago
These become much more usable when you use something like sass. You have a class name that makes sense and import the boostrappy styles into it.
zodiakzz 11y ago
Erm, you are simply misinformed. I use Bootstrap and I never use any presentational classes, these are just provided for convenience (although a huge amount of people abuse them). Bootstrap provides LESS mixins like .make-row(), .make-*column() etc. to keep your CSS semantic.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  I am not misinformed regarding Bootstrap; unfortunately I have extensive experience with it. :) Anyway, I should have remarked the fact that mixins do exist and semantic class names are totally possible with Bootstrap. I was just pointing out the kind of mark-up which appears in the example I quoted and, typically, in Bootstrap-powered stuff. It's not a problem with the framework, of course, but - as you said - people abuse the pre-made classes. Regarding Bootstrap in particular, I think most people just import the compiled stylesheet (so, no mixins & other assorted goodies).
SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
What I don't understand is why they felt the need to come up with their own implementation of Bootstrap? Don't get me wrong, I agree that it looks well thought out but why not just use Bootstrap for layout rather than reinventing the wheel? (Apologies if this is a stupid question.)

warfangle 11y ago

These become much more usable when you use something like sass. You have a class name that makes sense and import the boostrappy styles into it.

zodiakzz 11y ago

Erm, you are simply misinformed. I use Bootstrap and I never use any presentational classes, these are just provided for convenience (although a huge amount of people abuse them). Bootstrap provides LESS mixins like .make-row(), .make-*column() etc. to keep your CSS semantic.

paulojreis 11y ago
I am not misinformed regarding Bootstrap; unfortunately I have extensive experience with it. :) Anyway, I should have remarked the fact that mixins do exist and semantic class names are totally possible with Bootstrap. I was just pointing out the kind of mark-up which appears in the example I quoted and, typically, in Bootstrap-powered stuff. It's not a problem with the framework, of course, but - as you said - people abuse the pre-made classes. Regarding Bootstrap in particular, I think most people just import the compiled stylesheet (so, no mixins & other assorted goodies).

SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago

What I don't understand is why they felt the need to come up with their own implementation of Bootstrap? Don't get me wrong, I agree that it looks well thought out but why not just use Bootstrap for layout rather than reinventing the wheel? (Apologies if this is a stupid question.)