5 ms·

May I suggest another great back to basics CSS framework: http://bootstrapdocs.com/v1.4.0/docs/ http://bootstrapdocs.com/v1.4.0/docs/ It's only 12K minified an

by tga 9y ago

May I suggest another great back to basics CSS framework: http://bootstrapdocs.com/v1.4.0/docs/ http://bootstrapdocs.com/v1.4.0/docs/ It's only 12K minified and it includes everything you've come to expect from Bootstrap (that's now 120K minified). As a bonus, you get full _IE7_ support for all your friendly third world enterprise customers -- and no worries about responsive design because that's not supported at all!

jaymzcampbell 9y ago
Agreed - I made the mistake of using a small CSS starter framework and regretted it a few weeks into the project. CSS size isn't usually a problem for anything I do (internal backends typically) so I tend to just put bootstrap in and go. I think things like this (Shoelace) are a great learning experience for the developer(s) in question or for fun throwaway stuff. You could make an argument for them for a team project where there's wide agreement, but for anything I will need to maintain or share with someone or hand off I pretty much only use Bootstrap as a starting point. Saves a lot of headaches down the line.
- Kiro 9y ago
  You're not really agreeing though. The poster is suggesting Bootstrap v1.
  - jaymzcampbell 9y ago
    I am IMO; V4 might be a total rewrite but there's still some commonality between it and V1 with class names & concepts. I wasn't suggesting that current bootstrap and v1 are the same thing. For anything that I would need to support or work with others on, using a well-established CSS framework like Bootstrap (v-whatever) has always been safer and more productive in the long run. YMMV.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nrjames 9y ago
Use the term "third world" with your clients and they may wish to no longer be your clients. It's pretty outdated and almost never used in a professional context any longer. http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/372684438/if-you-shouldnt-call-it-the-third-world-what-should-you-call-it http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/37268443...
- unit91 9y ago
  The conclusion of the article you cited is that the authors can't find a way to conversationally distinguish between wealthy and poor nations without somebody being offended. I think this is a great illustration of the fact that, although some people intend to be derisive in their speech, we shouldn't assume that any designation whatsoever is intended as derision. That is, everybody needs to chill and assume the other person is making a good-faith attempt to be reasonably polite until proven otherwise.
  - nrjames 9y ago
    Fair enough. As somebody who has spent the past 15 years working in global health and international development, I can tell you that "third world" is considered pretty pejorative these days. While there might not be a convenient way to linguistically group together all those "friendly third world countries," I suggest you avoid using the term "third world."
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - richardwhiuk 9y ago
      Can you suggest an alternative? LEDCs? Developing countries? Newly industrialized countries? TPLACs (in jest)?
      - nrjames 9y ago
        I think your best bet is just to refer to regions or specific countries. The "developing" part of developing countries creates a false dichotomy. The World Bank doesn't even use it anymore (https://qz.com/685626/the-world-bank-is-eliminating-the-term-developing-country-from-its-data-vocabulary/ https://qz.com/685626/the-world-bank-is-eliminating-the-term...). Just say South East Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa, or whatever you mean.
OzzyB 9y ago
There is also Preboot[0] which is a "precursor to Bootstrap" and allows you to use just what you need. Don't know how big it is but it's very small and it's based on LESS so you can pick and match what you really need. Used it with pretty good success since I like to roll my own (sorry!) and Bootstrap and others was a little to much Batteries Included. [0] http://getpreboot.com http://getpreboot.com
- allover 9y ago
  > Bootstrap and others was a little to much Batteries Included. Don't really agree with that as Bootstrap is also modular, especially if you use it from Sass or LESS source, which IMO is the 'right way' to use it. (You can also make a customised build at http://getbootstrap.com/customize/ http://getbootstrap.com/customize/ if you want to pick and choose modules but don't use a preprocessor like Sass/LESS).
  - OzzyB 9y ago
    You know what, you're right, I guess I just like starting from a small footprint.
    - allover 9y ago
      Bootstrap is a small footprint though, e.g. typography module is 2.8kb gzipped. Add modules as needed, they're all well designed/thought-out. Shrug.
      - fuzzywalrus 9y ago
        Indeed, with Sass, just comment out what you don't need. I rarely use much beyond the grid and normalization, it nice as its a predictable setup that you can plug in front end devs, and almost everyone knows the media queries vars (if they don't, they can google them) and such.
SippinLean 9y ago
Bootstrap 3 or 4 are much more sophisticated and cover a lot more edge cases. Just comment out what you don't need in Sass. There are few projects that require the legacy browser support from v1.
- claviska 9y ago
  Problem is like I described here: https://davidwalsh.name/shoelace-css https://davidwalsh.name/shoelace-css TL;DR – most people just use the bundle because they don't want to setup a preprocessor.
  - SippinLean 9y ago
    Certainly hasn't been my experience, I can't think of a single project in the last 5 years that didn't use a preprocessor. Personally I would never go back to not using one. It's incredibly easy to set up and you have to set up a postprocessor anyhow.
    - ythn 9y ago
      This sounds like a statement made by a professional web developer. A lot of non-web-developers find themselves needing to throw up or maintain a basic website for this or that, but the web development scene is a freaking nightmare. > It's incredibly easy to set up Yeah, once you've spent a few hours reading up on the latest docs. That's like me saying saying to you "Building a customized linux kernel for any hardware is incredibly easy with Yocto Project"
      - SippinLean 9y ago
        There are GUIs for Sass now that require 0 knowledge of the command line. I think Prepros lets you drag and drop a folder and click a folder watcher button. `gem install sass` + a basic Gulpfile isn't that hard either. https://github.com/joe-watkins/gulp-sass-starter/blob/master/gulpfile.js https://github.com/joe-watkins/gulp-sass-starter/blob/master... Although you're correct, I meant in a professional environment. Id be quite surprised if I caught one of my devs not using a preprocessor.
mattbierner 9y ago
What is the CSS framework equivalent of: "expand until it can read mail"?

by tga 9y ago

jaymzcampbell 9y ago

Agreed - I made the mistake of using a small CSS starter framework and regretted it a few weeks into the project. CSS size isn't usually a problem for anything I do (internal backends typically) so I tend to just put bootstrap in and go. I think things like this (Shoelace) are a great learning experience for the developer(s) in question or for fun throwaway stuff. You could make an argument for them for a team project where there's wide agreement, but for anything I will need to maintain or share with someone or hand off I pretty much only use Bootstrap as a starting point. Saves a lot of headaches down the line.

Kiro 9y ago
You're not really agreeing though. The poster is suggesting Bootstrap v1.
- jaymzcampbell 9y ago
  I am IMO; V4 might be a total rewrite but there's still some commonality between it and V1 with class names & concepts. I wasn't suggesting that current bootstrap and v1 are the same thing. For anything that I would need to support or work with others on, using a well-established CSS framework like Bootstrap (v-whatever) has always been safer and more productive in the long run. YMMV.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

nrjames 9y ago

Use the term "third world" with your clients and they may wish to no longer be your clients. It's pretty outdated and almost never used in a professional context any longer. http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/372684438/if-you-shouldnt-call-it-the-third-world-what-should-you-call-it http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/37268443...

unit91 9y ago
The conclusion of the article you cited is that the authors can't find a way to conversationally distinguish between wealthy and poor nations without somebody being offended. I think this is a great illustration of the fact that, although some people intend to be derisive in their speech, we shouldn't assume that any designation whatsoever is intended as derision. That is, everybody needs to chill and assume the other person is making a good-faith attempt to be reasonably polite until proven otherwise.
- nrjames 9y ago
  Fair enough. As somebody who has spent the past 15 years working in global health and international development, I can tell you that "third world" is considered pretty pejorative these days. While there might not be a convenient way to linguistically group together all those "friendly third world countries," I suggest you avoid using the term "third world."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - richardwhiuk 9y ago
    Can you suggest an alternative? LEDCs? Developing countries? Newly industrialized countries? TPLACs (in jest)?
    - nrjames 9y ago
      I think your best bet is just to refer to regions or specific countries. The "developing" part of developing countries creates a false dichotomy. The World Bank doesn't even use it anymore (https://qz.com/685626/the-world-bank-is-eliminating-the-term-developing-country-from-its-data-vocabulary/ https://qz.com/685626/the-world-bank-is-eliminating-the-term...). Just say South East Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa, or whatever you mean.

OzzyB 9y ago

There is also Preboot[0] which is a "precursor to Bootstrap" and allows you to use just what you need. Don't know how big it is but it's very small and it's based on LESS so you can pick and match what you really need. Used it with pretty good success since I like to roll my own (sorry!) and Bootstrap and others was a little to much Batteries Included. [0] http://getpreboot.com http://getpreboot.com

allover 9y ago
> Bootstrap and others was a little to much Batteries Included. Don't really agree with that as Bootstrap is also modular, especially if you use it from Sass or LESS source, which IMO is the 'right way' to use it. (You can also make a customised build at http://getbootstrap.com/customize/ http://getbootstrap.com/customize/ if you want to pick and choose modules but don't use a preprocessor like Sass/LESS).
- OzzyB 9y ago
  You know what, you're right, I guess I just like starting from a small footprint.
  - allover 9y ago
    Bootstrap is a small footprint though, e.g. typography module is 2.8kb gzipped. Add modules as needed, they're all well designed/thought-out. Shrug.
    - fuzzywalrus 9y ago
      Indeed, with Sass, just comment out what you don't need. I rarely use much beyond the grid and normalization, it nice as its a predictable setup that you can plug in front end devs, and almost everyone knows the media queries vars (if they don't, they can google them) and such.

SippinLean 9y ago

Bootstrap 3 or 4 are much more sophisticated and cover a lot more edge cases. Just comment out what you don't need in Sass. There are few projects that require the legacy browser support from v1.

claviska 9y ago
Problem is like I described here: https://davidwalsh.name/shoelace-css https://davidwalsh.name/shoelace-css TL;DR – most people just use the bundle because they don't want to setup a preprocessor.
- SippinLean 9y ago
  Certainly hasn't been my experience, I can't think of a single project in the last 5 years that didn't use a preprocessor. Personally I would never go back to not using one. It's incredibly easy to set up and you have to set up a postprocessor anyhow.
  - ythn 9y ago
    This sounds like a statement made by a professional web developer. A lot of non-web-developers find themselves needing to throw up or maintain a basic website for this or that, but the web development scene is a freaking nightmare. > It's incredibly easy to set up Yeah, once you've spent a few hours reading up on the latest docs. That's like me saying saying to you "Building a customized linux kernel for any hardware is incredibly easy with Yocto Project"
    - SippinLean 9y ago
      There are GUIs for Sass now that require 0 knowledge of the command line. I think Prepros lets you drag and drop a folder and click a folder watcher button. `gem install sass` + a basic Gulpfile isn't that hard either. https://github.com/joe-watkins/gulp-sass-starter/blob/master/gulpfile.js https://github.com/joe-watkins/gulp-sass-starter/blob/master... Although you're correct, I meant in a professional environment. Id be quite surprised if I caught one of my devs not using a preprocessor.

mattbierner 9y ago

What is the CSS framework equivalent of: "expand until it can read mail"?