4 ms·

The timing of this post is fortuitous, as I'm looking at building a landing page and had a long discussion last night with a front-end developer about using Boo

by jlees 13y ago

The timing of this post is fortuitous, as I'm looking at building a landing page and had a long discussion last night with a front-end developer about using Bootstrap to do it. He's urging me to use Foundation instead. I haven't developed production level front-end code for years, and Bootstrap looks like a quick and easy way to get something up that doesn't look like arse (instead, it looks like Bootstrap). But I am hearing great things about Foundation as a good basis for long-term development; semantic design being a major point, plus lack of bloat.

lucisferre 13y ago
I don't know why people say Bootstrap is "bloated" and Foundation is not. They are pretty similar, in fact the Foundation CSS has a larger footprint (86kb vs 65kb). I think people say it because Foundation feels more "raw" but this is not a selling point in my opinion. In fact I find that Foundation's biggest flaw is that it's components don't look that hot. I will also agree Bootstrap is a quick and easy way to get something up. I would argue it is quicker and easier than Foundation, but many people with serious CSS skills don't want to work with it for some of the reasons I brought up. I think that Foundation is more flexible and extensible which is a big strength. However, none of this is that important for a landing page, I have been able to build landing pages quite comfortably with both and don't think either has a huge advantage here. A landing page isn't a huge task either so I'd try doing a rough design on paper and building with both to see which you like best. I will probably concede though for most "product/fit" finding experiments Bootstrap may still have the speed advantage, particularly if you are not that familiar with CSS (in fact I credit Bootstrap with teaching me a lot about CSS).
- tracker1 13y ago
  What's funny is how many people use the kitchen sink (all-in) bootstrap.min.css files... I generally pull the source .less files and then copy the variables, and mixins file, and create my own bootstrap-custom.less that points to the copied files, and the rest of the original... from there, I can modify the copied bits at will, and better integrate my own extensions.
- jlees 13y ago
  The bloat argument I was given - and I may be rephrasing it incorrectly - is that for Bootstrap, you include the base CSS and then override a bunch of stuff, so you often end up with elements that get defined in multiple places multiple times. Especially so if you use a "Bootstrap style" on top of the default.
workbench 13y ago
Honestly don't get why people can't just use CSS for something like this. Talk about over-engineering
- trumbitta2 13y ago
  The subject is Bootstrap. The landing page is just a way to show some of Bootstrap...

by jlees 13y ago

lucisferre 13y ago

I don't know why people say Bootstrap is "bloated" and Foundation is not. They are pretty similar, in fact the Foundation CSS has a larger footprint (86kb vs 65kb). I think people say it because Foundation feels more "raw" but this is not a selling point in my opinion. In fact I find that Foundation's biggest flaw is that it's components don't look that hot. I will also agree Bootstrap is a quick and easy way to get something up. I would argue it is quicker and easier than Foundation, but many people with serious CSS skills don't want to work with it for some of the reasons I brought up. I think that Foundation is more flexible and extensible which is a big strength. However, none of this is that important for a landing page, I have been able to build landing pages quite comfortably with both and don't think either has a huge advantage here. A landing page isn't a huge task either so I'd try doing a rough design on paper and building with both to see which you like best. I will probably concede though for most "product/fit" finding experiments Bootstrap may still have the speed advantage, particularly if you are not that familiar with CSS (in fact I credit Bootstrap with teaching me a lot about CSS).

tracker1 13y ago
What's funny is how many people use the kitchen sink (all-in) bootstrap.min.css files... I generally pull the source .less files and then copy the variables, and mixins file, and create my own bootstrap-custom.less that points to the copied files, and the rest of the original... from there, I can modify the copied bits at will, and better integrate my own extensions.
jlees 13y ago
The bloat argument I was given - and I may be rephrasing it incorrectly - is that for Bootstrap, you include the base CSS and then override a bunch of stuff, so you often end up with elements that get defined in multiple places multiple times. Especially so if you use a "Bootstrap style" on top of the default.

workbench 13y ago

Honestly don't get why people can't just use CSS for something like this. Talk about over-engineering

trumbitta2 13y ago
The subject is Bootstrap. The landing page is just a way to show some of Bootstrap...