4 ms·
I don't see any benefit to using this framework to Bootstrap. The author lists the following pros and cons: Pros: - Published under the incredibly permissive
by dntrkv 13y ago
I don't see any benefit to using this framework to Bootstrap. The author lists the following pros and cons:
Pros:
- Published under the incredibly permissive MIT License (sure, I don't know enough about the different licenses to comment on this)
- Very well documented (bootstrap is very well documented, and has a huge community behind it)
- Seems to be easier to learn/use (that's subjective, but I think bootstrap is plenty easy to use)
- Has a Grid layout (yes... who doesn't use a grid layout?)
- Uses LESS (so does bootstrap)
- A very nice implementation of buttons, modals, & progress bars (again, subjective, but bootstrap has a great, and simple, button and modal implementation, haven't used the progress bars. also, <button class="btn"> is much better than <div class="button">, especially if you're going for semantics)
- Uses an Icon font for many of it's features (k, sure)
- Has some very useful extras such as the inverted class (so does bootstrap)
- Open to community contribution (so is bootstrap)
Cons:
- No image slider (bootstrap has this)
- No thumbnail classes (bootstrap also has this)
- No visibility classes (bootstrap has this)
- No SASS (does have LESS) (not really a con but ok)
- Not at a release >1.0
I'm not trying to dis the framework (I haven't use it), but the author is claiming that it is somehow superior to bootstrap and foundation and does not present any evidence supporting this claim.
- cschmidt 13y agoThe Apache 2 license of Bootstrap is also plenty generous. MIT isn't really much of an advantage.
- vanadium 13y agoRegardless, Bootstrap appears to be assessing a migration to the MIT license in 3.1: https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/9397 https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/9397
- krainboltgreene 13y agoIt really depends on the type of semantic, because this is good design semantics. Not terribly good document semantics.
- risratorn 13y agoThe author does a really shitty job of pointing out the differences between Bootstrap/Foundation and SemanticUI but if you browse through the documentation and examples it becomes clear that this framework has several features, components and modules that neither bootstrap or foundation have like dimmers, 3D transforms (shape), equal height columns, dividers, validation, ... It features a lot of UI patterns that are pretty hard to pull of with bootstrap alone and that imho makes it worth it. I'm not yet convinced by the actualy class name semantics, it might be a learning curve though. And i absolutely hate the button-divs ... bootstrap does a way beter job at keeping html semantics for buttons. That being said, this seems like serious competition for bootstrap and foundation. I'm curious for the final release.
- mbesto 13y agoThe actual project itself points to "why it's better" - http://semantic-ui.com/ http://semantic-ui.com/ (this article is just a puff piece for it) The basic "problem solved" is this statement right here: Lose the Hieroglyphics - Semantic is structured around natural language conventions to make development more intuitive. Is the difference between <div class="col-lg-4"> and <div class="column"> that hard for people? Sounds like a solution to a non-problem for me...
- TuringTest 13y agoIf you can't see the difference, you are not the target audience for the library.