4 ms·
Pretty clean. I can't help but think that Yahoo! is just trying to roll their own Twitter Bootstrap.
by niix 13y ago
Pretty clean. I can't help but think that Yahoo! is just trying to roll their own Twitter Bootstrap.
- BJanecke 13y agoHow is that a bad thing?
- aioprisan 13y agoit doesn't add anything new
- BJanecke 13y agoFoundation is not much different from bootstrap on the surface; yet there are use cases where foundation works alot better than bootstrap and vice versa. Diversity is good bootstrap is fast headed to becoming a mono-culture in html/css prototyping. Pure is still a very young framework and might yet end up targeting a different use case than bootstrap does.
- hobonumber1 13y agoI tried to do something different with Pure. The main motivation for me was to have a small CSS framework that isn't cookie-cutter. Most sites that use Bootstrap pull in 100kb+ of CSS (minified). Pure is less than 5kb. I love Bootstrap but it's a pain to build on top of it, because it's so opinionated in its design.
- niix 13y agoI agree that there is this sort of "cookie-cutter" style website being created all over the Internet because of Bootstrap. While I do love Bootstrap, I'll give this a go due to it's appearance to be an unobtrusive take on an HTML framework.
- twistedpair 13y agoNot sure that 100k vs 5k is that important. Look at any major site out there. You'll find 10-17 bolt on JS widgets being loaded (i.e. Fb or G+ buttons) and tons of other JS dependencies. yahoo.com: 58 requests, 336k. wsj.com: 123 requests, 1410k I'm a fan of making things smaller and use GWT to compile and compress versions of sites for each browser and format to achieve the bare minimum, but starting out at the CSS lib might be premature optimization give that it's not where most of the fat is. Plus, next to no site is going to use just that lib and their CSS will surely grow well in excess of that 5k.