4 ms·

Do you have any specifics on why you consider Bootstrap more opinionated? I've used both on a few different sites and haven't really noticed this.

arcosdev 14y ago
The whole javascript-hipster-semicolon debacle would be high on my list
- mcrittenden 14y ago
  That doesn't really affect the developer using it though. GP's argument that Foundation is more flexible and Bootstrap is more opinionated seems unrelated to the semicolon debate.
  - mattyfo 14y ago
    I disagree, I found the Bootstrap JS code hard to read and follow because of the lack of semicolons. For a framework that is supposed to help people 'bootstrap' it would seem to me that making their code understandable and accessible is something important.
    - baby 14y ago
      I don't see how the lack of semicolons disturbed you, I actually noticed it earlier today for the first time. If you're having trouble with that you won't be able to read Python very efficiently.
pault 14y ago
Bootstrap comes "designed" out of the box, Foundation is intentionally very plain and intended to be built upon (hence the name).
account_taken 14y ago
Bootstrap styles are deeply baked in. Changing the variables file isn't enough if you want a non-bootstrappy looking site. Foundation's styles are easier to override and to get the look you want. Bootstrap's eco system is huge. If I had to use one, it would be Bootstrap. Since I can choose either, I use Bootstrap most of the time and Foundation when I need more control.
- meerita 14y ago
  That's not certainly true. You can use Bootstrap at any level, even, skipping every of the baked modules and make a website who doesn't look like Bootstrap. For the variable parts, thats another myth: you can override variables easily. I have nothing against Foundation, but to me, all the frameworks claim silly things to gain developers and developers aren't that kind of stupid consumer. Just bring the facts, let the devs decide.

arcosdev 14y ago

The whole javascript-hipster-semicolon debacle would be high on my list

mcrittenden 14y ago
That doesn't really affect the developer using it though. GP's argument that Foundation is more flexible and Bootstrap is more opinionated seems unrelated to the semicolon debate.
- mattyfo 14y ago
  I disagree, I found the Bootstrap JS code hard to read and follow because of the lack of semicolons. For a framework that is supposed to help people 'bootstrap' it would seem to me that making their code understandable and accessible is something important.
  - baby 14y ago
    I don't see how the lack of semicolons disturbed you, I actually noticed it earlier today for the first time. If you're having trouble with that you won't be able to read Python very efficiently.

pault 14y ago

Bootstrap comes "designed" out of the box, Foundation is intentionally very plain and intended to be built upon (hence the name).

account_taken 14y ago

Bootstrap styles are deeply baked in. Changing the variables file isn't enough if you want a non-bootstrappy looking site. Foundation's styles are easier to override and to get the look you want. Bootstrap's eco system is huge. If I had to use one, it would be Bootstrap. Since I can choose either, I use Bootstrap most of the time and Foundation when I need more control.

meerita 14y ago
That's not certainly true. You can use Bootstrap at any level, even, skipping every of the baked modules and make a website who doesn't look like Bootstrap. For the variable parts, thats another myth: you can override variables easily. I have nothing against Foundation, but to me, all the frameworks claim silly things to gain developers and developers aren't that kind of stupid consumer. Just bring the facts, let the devs decide.