5 ms·

This is not a criticism of this project specifically, but I feel like when you come out with a framework like this you should have a big "Why you should use Fra

This is not a criticism of this project specifically, but I feel like when you come out with a framework like this you should have a big "Why you should use Framework XYZ instead of Boostrap" section somewhere, because this is the main question most people will have.

baby 14y ago
more like instead of Foundation since it uses Compass+Sass. I just glanced at it and it seems extremely close to Foundation, it even uses orbit. I like the tooltips and the forms, the documentation is actually better than the Foundation one. I don't particularly like the grid system as it works in ratio (feels like you have to do more math).
- Kiro 14y ago
  I use Foundation without Compass+Sass. I don't feel it's a vital part of the project.
przemoc 14y ago
Why I should use Bootstrap?
- riffraff 14y ago
  the actual sensible question would be "..instead of this", and the answer is clearly "because it's been around much longer, many more people use it already". Bootstrap is the incumbent so other similar frameworks _must_ explain why they are better, or it's the default choice. Of course if you actually want to know why you should use a framework like bootstrap then you can just read bootstrap's site.
cristianpascu 14y ago
Or, why not contribute to bootstrap instead?
Noxchi 14y ago
>but I feel like when you come out with a framework like this you should have a big "Why you should use Framework XYZ instead of Boostrap" section somewhere This is true for any product whatsoever, not just a framework. Answer this question, and make it the headline of your landing page: If I am your ideal prospect, why should I say yes to you rather than any of your competitors?
wslh 14y ago
May be we need a new layer: a lib to handle different frameworks! like Haxe but for HTML.
- Flenser 14y ago
  In our current project instead of putting the framework's html/css into our codebase I'm outputting as bare bones html as I can with semantic class names on everything and then mapping those classes to the framework using sass mixins/extends/includes. To make a RWD site I'm having to rewrite a lot of the framework to be mixins instead of classes so that I can use them in @media as SASS doesn't allow @extend in @media any more[1]. What I'd find really useful would be a framework thats entirely built from mixins/partials and outputs no css until you create your own classes that use them. [1]: https://github.com/nex3/sass/issues/154 https://github.com/nex3/sass/issues/154 Disallow @extend within directives
  - brianfryer 14y ago
    > What I'd find really useful would be a framework thats entirely built from mixins/partials and outputs no css until you create your own classes that use them. Here's exactly what you're looking for: * Bourbon: A mixin library for Sass (http://bourbon.io/docs/ http://bourbon.io/docs/) * Neat: A semantic grid framework built on top of Sass and Bourbon (http://neat.bourbon.io/ http://neat.bourbon.io/) And, if you use LESS, you have these options: * LESS Elements: Mixins library for LESS (http://lesselements.com/ http://lesselements.com/) * Semantic.gs: Semantic CSS grid system for LESS (http://semantic.gs/ http://semantic.gs/)
    - Flenser 14y ago
      Thanks, I'd forgotten about bourbon/neat.
- fizx 14y ago
  Have you seen sgf4js? (simple grid facade for javascript)
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
This uses Sass, Bootstrap uses Less.
- twog 14y ago
  Its pretty easy to switch that now https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass
  - wiradikusuma 14y ago
    CMIIW, the project you mentioned is not really usable for customized bootstrap, it's all-or-nothing. Since I want to include (customized) Bootstrap into Compass but don't use fancy stuff (variables etc), I simply rename bootstrap.css to bootstrap.scss and be done with it.
- Kiro 14y ago
  Is that really that big of a difference? Besides, I thought most people used Bootstrap without Less. At least I do.
joeblau 14y ago
That is the first thing that crossed my mind after I bookmarked the site.
mattmanser 14y ago
The javascript been written properly? https://github.com/groundworkcss/groundwork/blob/master/js/groundwork.js https://github.com/groundworkcss/groundwork/blob/master/js/g... (joke, joke! Well, no smoke without fire...)
- deoxxa 14y ago
  I'm really hoping the irony of linking to a CoffeeScript-generated JavaScript file and using it as an example of properly-written JavaScript was at least part of the joke here.
- ghepting 14y ago
  CoffeeScript is definitely my language of choice and compiled to highly accurate and optionally minified javascript.
acoyfellow 14y ago
I think it's fairly obvious as to what the benefit is, considering how many times an app idea that's too "bootstrappy" gets railed on. This seems like a decent alternative for out of the box design. Once/if this becomes popular then it too could become too standard- but for now, it's very different. That's good. As far as design is concerned, I think more frameworks in the market is a good thing. The saturation could make the bad designers worse, but it gives good designers just more tools to explore with.
- ghepting 14y ago
  As with industry, competition most often leads to further innovation and drive to improve a product. ;)
michaelbuckbee 14y ago
What's really hard for new frameworks to overcome is the huge community that Bootstrap has created, checkout the big badass list of Bootstrap resources: http://www.bootstraphero.com/the-big-badass-list-of-twitter-bootstrap-resources http://www.bootstraphero.com/the-big-badass-list-of-twitter-...
ghepting 14y ago
Great point! I will work on drafting something to this effect. Thanks for the feedback! :)

baby 14y ago

more like instead of Foundation since it uses Compass+Sass. I just glanced at it and it seems extremely close to Foundation, it even uses orbit. I like the tooltips and the forms, the documentation is actually better than the Foundation one. I don't particularly like the grid system as it works in ratio (feels like you have to do more math).

Kiro 14y ago
I use Foundation without Compass+Sass. I don't feel it's a vital part of the project.

przemoc 14y ago

Why I should use Bootstrap?

riffraff 14y ago
the actual sensible question would be "..instead of this", and the answer is clearly "because it's been around much longer, many more people use it already". Bootstrap is the incumbent so other similar frameworks _must_ explain why they are better, or it's the default choice. Of course if you actually want to know why you should use a framework like bootstrap then you can just read bootstrap's site.

cristianpascu 14y ago

Or, why not contribute to bootstrap instead?

Noxchi 14y ago

>but I feel like when you come out with a framework like this you should have a big "Why you should use Framework XYZ instead of Boostrap" section somewhere This is true for any product whatsoever, not just a framework. Answer this question, and make it the headline of your landing page: If I am your ideal prospect, why should I say yes to you rather than any of your competitors?

wslh 14y ago

May be we need a new layer: a lib to handle different frameworks! like Haxe but for HTML.

Flenser 14y ago
In our current project instead of putting the framework's html/css into our codebase I'm outputting as bare bones html as I can with semantic class names on everything and then mapping those classes to the framework using sass mixins/extends/includes. To make a RWD site I'm having to rewrite a lot of the framework to be mixins instead of classes so that I can use them in @media as SASS doesn't allow @extend in @media any more[1]. What I'd find really useful would be a framework thats entirely built from mixins/partials and outputs no css until you create your own classes that use them. [1]: https://github.com/nex3/sass/issues/154 https://github.com/nex3/sass/issues/154 Disallow @extend within directives
- brianfryer 14y ago
  > What I'd find really useful would be a framework thats entirely built from mixins/partials and outputs no css until you create your own classes that use them. Here's exactly what you're looking for: * Bourbon: A mixin library for Sass (http://bourbon.io/docs/ http://bourbon.io/docs/) * Neat: A semantic grid framework built on top of Sass and Bourbon (http://neat.bourbon.io/ http://neat.bourbon.io/) And, if you use LESS, you have these options: * LESS Elements: Mixins library for LESS (http://lesselements.com/ http://lesselements.com/) * Semantic.gs: Semantic CSS grid system for LESS (http://semantic.gs/ http://semantic.gs/)
  - Flenser 14y ago
    Thanks, I'd forgotten about bourbon/neat.
fizx 14y ago
Have you seen sgf4js? (simple grid facade for javascript)

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

This uses Sass, Bootstrap uses Less.

twog 14y ago
Its pretty easy to switch that now https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass
- wiradikusuma 14y ago
  CMIIW, the project you mentioned is not really usable for customized bootstrap, it's all-or-nothing. Since I want to include (customized) Bootstrap into Compass but don't use fancy stuff (variables etc), I simply rename bootstrap.css to bootstrap.scss and be done with it.
Kiro 14y ago
Is that really that big of a difference? Besides, I thought most people used Bootstrap without Less. At least I do.

joeblau 14y ago

That is the first thing that crossed my mind after I bookmarked the site.

mattmanser 14y ago

The javascript been written properly? https://github.com/groundworkcss/groundwork/blob/master/js/groundwork.js https://github.com/groundworkcss/groundwork/blob/master/js/g... (joke, joke! Well, no smoke without fire...)

deoxxa 14y ago
I'm really hoping the irony of linking to a CoffeeScript-generated JavaScript file and using it as an example of properly-written JavaScript was at least part of the joke here.
ghepting 14y ago
CoffeeScript is definitely my language of choice and compiled to highly accurate and optionally minified javascript.

acoyfellow 14y ago

I think it's fairly obvious as to what the benefit is, considering how many times an app idea that's too "bootstrappy" gets railed on. This seems like a decent alternative for out of the box design. Once/if this becomes popular then it too could become too standard- but for now, it's very different. That's good. As far as design is concerned, I think more frameworks in the market is a good thing. The saturation could make the bad designers worse, but it gives good designers just more tools to explore with.

ghepting 14y ago
As with industry, competition most often leads to further innovation and drive to improve a product. ;)

michaelbuckbee 14y ago

What's really hard for new frameworks to overcome is the huge community that Bootstrap has created, checkout the big badass list of Bootstrap resources: http://www.bootstraphero.com/the-big-badass-list-of-twitter-bootstrap-resources http://www.bootstraphero.com/the-big-badass-list-of-twitter-...

ghepting 14y ago

Great point! I will work on drafting something to this effect. Thanks for the feedback! :)