6 ms·

What evidence do you have that this is the main reason and not simply the fact that Bootstrap's wide popularity predates Foundation? .)

by xixixao 10y ago

mgkimsal 10y ago
They both came out within a month of each other or so (bootstrap had a slight edge, I think). Having the Twitter name behind it gave it some PR, of course, but as I mentioned in another comment, having decent looking and consistent style out of the box from day one was yet another factor cementing their popularity. Zurb answers "Why Doesn't Foundation Have as Much Styling as Bootstrap?" with "We purposely left our styles sparse. We didn't want to end up in a world where all the sites looked like Foundation." So... on purpose, I don't have a consistent and full 'out of the box' experience. I am required to do more work than I want to make it look decent (that's how I'm reading it, and my limited experience with zurb at that time).
- rafibomb 10y ago
  True, it's a different philosophy. Having the added styling in the box like Bootstrap works for people who are good with the visual look of it out of the box. With Foundation, it's supposed to look like a wireframe to allow for your visual identity be easily laid on top of, a truly custom design. Example: Bootstrap Nav Bar Link `.navbar-default .navbar-nav>.active>a` Foundation TopBar Link `.menu > li.active > a` Foundation usually uses less selectors to override, lower specificity.
  - chiefalchemist 10y ago
    Yup. It's all in the name. Bootstrap - Get something presentable, quickly. Foundation - We'll help you start but anything above the foundation is up to you. It's not hard to imagine why one had more mainstream appeal than the other.
- freehunter 10y ago
  So basically, Bootstrap is Rails/Django and Foundation is Sinatra/Flask.
  - pmontra 10y ago
    And I don't use Sinatra because I always end up waste time to add to it most of what Rails gives me out of the box. In CSS space, if the customer has a designer, I use whatever the designer decides to do. It's his task to fill the gap from Foundation to Bootstrap or (more often) customize Bootstrap and make it look nice. If the designer is me (laughing) then I use plain Bootatrap and that's the end of it.
- mycall 10y ago
  Also, ASP.NET MVC uses Bootstrap by default. That's big win too.

What evidence do you have that this is the main reason and not simply the fact that Bootstrap's wide popularity predates Foundation? .)

by xixixao 10y ago

What evidence do you have that this is the main reason and not simply the fact that Bootstrap's wide popularity predates Foundation? .)

mgkimsal 10y ago

They both came out within a month of each other or so (bootstrap had a slight edge, I think). Having the Twitter name behind it gave it some PR, of course, but as I mentioned in another comment, having decent looking and consistent style out of the box from day one was yet another factor cementing their popularity. Zurb answers "Why Doesn't Foundation Have as Much Styling as Bootstrap?" with "We purposely left our styles sparse. We didn't want to end up in a world where all the sites looked like Foundation." So... on purpose, I don't have a consistent and full 'out of the box' experience. I am required to do more work than I want to make it look decent (that's how I'm reading it, and my limited experience with zurb at that time).

rafibomb 10y ago
True, it's a different philosophy. Having the added styling in the box like Bootstrap works for people who are good with the visual look of it out of the box. With Foundation, it's supposed to look like a wireframe to allow for your visual identity be easily laid on top of, a truly custom design. Example: Bootstrap Nav Bar Link `.navbar-default .navbar-nav>.active>a` Foundation TopBar Link `.menu > li.active > a` Foundation usually uses less selectors to override, lower specificity.
- chiefalchemist 10y ago
  Yup. It's all in the name. Bootstrap - Get something presentable, quickly. Foundation - We'll help you start but anything above the foundation is up to you. It's not hard to imagine why one had more mainstream appeal than the other.
freehunter 10y ago
So basically, Bootstrap is Rails/Django and Foundation is Sinatra/Flask.
- pmontra 10y ago
  And I don't use Sinatra because I always end up waste time to add to it most of what Rails gives me out of the box. In CSS space, if the customer has a designer, I use whatever the designer decides to do. It's his task to fill the gap from Foundation to Bootstrap or (more often) customize Bootstrap and make it look nice. If the designer is me (laughing) then I use plain Bootatrap and that's the end of it.
mycall 10y ago
Also, ASP.NET MVC uses Bootstrap by default. That's big win too.