3 ms·

can someone explain me why bootstrap continues to be NOT compatible with it previous versions? whats the reasoning behind changing -large into -lg other than co

can someone explain me why bootstrap continues to be NOT compatible with it previous versions? whats the reasoning behind changing -large into -lg other than cosmetic? also, I am not a fan of !important. To many times it feels "screw it we dont know how properly cascade styles so just overwrite everything with !important". Its especially problematic when you want to overwrite !important with !important :|

jonknee 13y ago
They are easy to refactor (search and replace .btn-mini to .btn-xs in .css and .html files) and if you're depending on betas to remain consistent you're not being realistic. I've done quite a bit in Bootstrap and I appreciate the small names, doubly so when they are consistent.
markdotto 13y ago
Naming changes were for consistency across the framework. We only use `!important` on utilities where specificity would make them impractical. Quick floats, toggling by viewport size, etc make it necessary unfortunately. When it comes to every other component though, we don't use it at all. Major version release enable us to break backward compatibility. Other motivations aside, I see no reason to not do it in attempts to do something better.
- joering2 13y ago
  > Naming changes were for consistency across the framework. Can you elaborate? Bootstrap framework? so somewhere else you has mood swing and started calling 'xs' and now you want to update the rest of your framework? OR you talking about something else? > Other motivations aside, I see no reason to not do it in attempts to do something better. I have been in IT only last 28 years, but until now its been a normal thing that the new version is compatible with old one. Check newest MS Word you can still open Word 97 documents. What you doing here is you are discouraging those who trusted your framework from spending hours and hours rewriting their codebase to match your newest release. Most will not achieve that, so internet will be infested with outdated bootstrap websites. One could say "nothing wrong with that, noone force you to trust bootstrap", and they will be right. On that note, anyone can suggest alternative Framework with more mature approach to new release compatibility?
  - eertami 13y ago
    >Check newest MS Word you can still open Word 97 documents. It's not really a fair comparison at all. One is a stylesheet, the other is a desktop office application. >but until now its been a normal thing that the new version is compatible with old one Not true at all, look at Python 2->3, PHP 4->5, jQuery 1.x->2.x. Major releases often break backwards compatibility. >from spending hours and hours rewriting their codebase to match your newest release Design is not something you have to rewrite to 'match the newest release', there are no security vulnerabilities in a style sheet. It is fine to stay in Bootstrap 2.

jonknee 13y ago

They are easy to refactor (search and replace .btn-mini to .btn-xs in .css and .html files) and if you're depending on betas to remain consistent you're not being realistic. I've done quite a bit in Bootstrap and I appreciate the small names, doubly so when they are consistent.

markdotto 13y ago

Naming changes were for consistency across the framework. We only use `!important` on utilities where specificity would make them impractical. Quick floats, toggling by viewport size, etc make it necessary unfortunately. When it comes to every other component though, we don't use it at all. Major version release enable us to break backward compatibility. Other motivations aside, I see no reason to not do it in attempts to do something better.

joering2 13y ago
> Naming changes were for consistency across the framework. Can you elaborate? Bootstrap framework? so somewhere else you has mood swing and started calling 'xs' and now you want to update the rest of your framework? OR you talking about something else? > Other motivations aside, I see no reason to not do it in attempts to do something better. I have been in IT only last 28 years, but until now its been a normal thing that the new version is compatible with old one. Check newest MS Word you can still open Word 97 documents. What you doing here is you are discouraging those who trusted your framework from spending hours and hours rewriting their codebase to match your newest release. Most will not achieve that, so internet will be infested with outdated bootstrap websites. One could say "nothing wrong with that, noone force you to trust bootstrap", and they will be right. On that note, anyone can suggest alternative Framework with more mature approach to new release compatibility?
- eertami 13y ago
  >Check newest MS Word you can still open Word 97 documents. It's not really a fair comparison at all. One is a stylesheet, the other is a desktop office application. >but until now its been a normal thing that the new version is compatible with old one Not true at all, look at Python 2->3, PHP 4->5, jQuery 1.x->2.x. Major releases often break backwards compatibility. >from spending hours and hours rewriting their codebase to match your newest release Design is not something you have to rewrite to 'match the newest release', there are no security vulnerabilities in a style sheet. It is fine to stay in Bootstrap 2.