3 ms·

Bulma is severly limited compared to BS4, lacking many major components (I don't even think there are any JS components) and all the best parts are almost ident

Bulma is severly limited compared to BS4, lacking many major components (I don't even think there are any JS components) and all the best parts are almost identical to BS, in same cases with identical naming. There is no tool to customize your theme, like BS has. I can take the BS source, comment out half of it and end up with Bulma. If I started with Bulma, I'd have to write lots of code to end up with a framework that rivals BS.

philliphaydon 9y ago
No Javascript is great. Bootstrap requires jquery, some making some events really hard to manage with react or angular. And react/angular bootstrap libraries are restrictive that it makes it hard to extend features of bootstrap. All these issues go away with bulma. No tool to customise theme is great. I don't want a bootstrap looking theme. It gets in the way... bootstrap is structure and styling throwing in the kitchen sink and half the house but not adding any doors or windows and you can't hide a builder to add more without it costing a kidney.
- SippinLean 9y ago
  >No Javascript is great Then don't use the JS parts of BS? >No tool to customise theme is great. I don't want a bootstrap looking theme. These sentences are contradictory. The tool allows you to make a theme that doesn't look like everyone else's. Bulma does not have this option. You will end up with a "Bulma-looking" theme. >It gets in the way Unlike Bulma's visual styling? If you don't want a default-looking theme, wouldn't you need to customize it then? Doesn't lacking any tools to do so make this harder? I don't understand this argument.
  - philliphaydon 9y ago
    Sometimes styling bootstrap is Super frustrating. Same with foundation and semantic UI. Bulma and other small libraries are much more flexible in this regard.
- tracker1 9y ago
  There are other toolkits for bootstrap that don't use the jquery based JS.. you can use anything, as long as the rendering uses the correct classes for a given state, etc.
wolco 9y ago
That's a feature and reason for using smaller libruaries because if you only need some pieces why include everything. I find full frameworks like bootstrap or quasar to be nicer to deal with.

philliphaydon 9y ago

No Javascript is great. Bootstrap requires jquery, some making some events really hard to manage with react or angular. And react/angular bootstrap libraries are restrictive that it makes it hard to extend features of bootstrap. All these issues go away with bulma. No tool to customise theme is great. I don't want a bootstrap looking theme. It gets in the way... bootstrap is structure and styling throwing in the kitchen sink and half the house but not adding any doors or windows and you can't hide a builder to add more without it costing a kidney.

SippinLean 9y ago
>No Javascript is great Then don't use the JS parts of BS? >No tool to customise theme is great. I don't want a bootstrap looking theme. These sentences are contradictory. The tool allows you to make a theme that doesn't look like everyone else's. Bulma does not have this option. You will end up with a "Bulma-looking" theme. >It gets in the way Unlike Bulma's visual styling? If you don't want a default-looking theme, wouldn't you need to customize it then? Doesn't lacking any tools to do so make this harder? I don't understand this argument.
- philliphaydon 9y ago
  Sometimes styling bootstrap is Super frustrating. Same with foundation and semantic UI. Bulma and other small libraries are much more flexible in this regard.
tracker1 9y ago
There are other toolkits for bootstrap that don't use the jquery based JS.. you can use anything, as long as the rendering uses the correct classes for a given state, etc.

wolco 9y ago

That's a feature and reason for using smaller libruaries because if you only need some pieces why include everything. I find full frameworks like bootstrap or quasar to be nicer to deal with.