4 ms·
I actually skipped Bootstrap for one single reason: everyone uses it. That's not a bad thing per-se, but the problem is that developers don't bother changing an
by tzaman 13y ago
I actually skipped Bootstrap for one single reason: everyone uses it. That's not a bad thing per-se, but the problem is that developers don't bother changing anything so each Bootstrapped site looks exactly as the next.
That's why I chose ZURB Foundation (now version 4), I love that it's written in sass out of the box (as opposed to Bootstrap's less), comes as gem, and more importantly, it has a settings file, which is kinda the central point of where you define all variables, from dimensions to colors - so apart from HTML it's very few custom css you need to write and still stand out.
- untog 13y agoand more importantly, it has a settings file, which is kinda the central point of where you define all variables, from dimensions to colors So does Bootstrap, though. It's just that people don't change it.
- tzaman 13y agoI wasn't aware of it, thank you for the heads up!
- lowboy 13y agoIt would be nice if they directed people to modifying and compiling the Less instead of just dropping in bootstrap.css. But just because other devs don't change anything doesn't mean you can't. Bootstrap is a good framework for what it purports to do. Foundation is pretty good too from the last time I checked it out (v3, iirc), but it lacks the same community in terms of numbers which can be detrimental at times. We picked MooTools over jQ in 2006 for our custom CMS system (we used it to build at least a hundred sites and were invested in it) and it was disheartening to watch the plugins just pass us by over the years.