2 ms·
It makes stuff look decent when that's all I need. I need a minimally responsive site that doesn't look like ass, where I can possibly change a couple colors,
by mgkimsal 10y ago
It makes stuff look decent when that's all I need.
I need a minimally responsive site that doesn't look like ass, where I can possibly change a couple colors, but things basically look good to go out of the box.
Bootstrap was a fucking godsend in 2011 compared to everything else out there at the time. I can have something up that fits a client's requirements (something that doesn't look ugly) and spend more time on their actual functional requirements vs spending bullshit time downloading 200,000 NPM files and fucking with dependency hell just to have grunt and gulp and sass and less and all that other bullshit work.
I delivered line of business apps that looked decent, and frankly still look pretty decent (BS2 has held up OK, and BS3 is still decent even without any tweaking).
And guess what? For many many many types of web software that's delivered, Bootstrap is GOOD ENOUGH. It's a 'minimum viable css grid', where "minimum" and "viable" include "not looking like crap that I have to spend hours tweaking".
Any of that reasoning encounter you any better?
- chiefalchemist 10y agoI tend to agree. Aesthetic design is overrated. The average user won't care if they get the info/result they need. As long as you don't offend - and Bootstrap is above that fairly low bar - most visitors will be satisfied. Furthermore more, Bootstrap made "mobile first" easy to embrace. It certainly helped to usher in RWD.