11 ms·
Bootstrap 3.1 released
- cryowaffle 13y agoThank you Bootstrap team!
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoBootstrap has made my life monumentally easier for developing internal apps, yet I still feel like something isn't perfect. When developing mobile pages, I feel that the responsive interface is still not mobile-friendly enough for CRUD apps. I've played with RatchetUI (Which has Bootstrap members on the team), Semantic-UI, and Foundation, but the more-widespread adoption of Bootstrap keeps dragging me back in. I guess it can't be all things to all people. I just wish there was a more widely-adopted mobile-first framework.
- STRiDEX 13y agoDefining all 4 screen sizes gets tedious. That aside, The new landing page on http://getbootstrap.com/ http://getbootstrap.com/ looks great
- admiraltbags 13y agoGreat? Looks bland. Anyone else have a weird box sitting under the download button? http://i.imgur.com/U5OyI7g.png http://i.imgur.com/U5OyI7g.png
- dntrkv 13y agoI think "bland" is what they were going for since this version of Bootstrap is more barebones stylistically and it's up to the developer to make it look the way they want.
- evanspa 13y agoThat weird box displays as an ad for me.
- victorhooi 13y agoHave you got an ad-blocker running? I believe that box is meant to be an ad, which the creators of Bootstrap use to support the project.
- kibibu 13y agoI'm getting the same thing and I'm definitely not running an ad blocker. Chrome 32/OSX, no extensions. Perhaps the CarbonAds thing is just flaky
- chrisoverzero 13y agoYou're blocking an ad.
- taspeotis 13y agoTry it without having add-ins that modify DOM...
- jfoster 13y agoI had it too, using Chrome without an ad-blocker. It's a caching issue. If you hit Ctrl-F5, it will display as an ad.
- dougbarrett 13y ago> Defining all 4 screen sizes gets tedious. I've got to disagree, I think just having to add col size classes to divs to change how it's laid out on mobile/tablets/large monitors has helped tremendously, with 2.x it felt like we just had to hope it all worked out.
- jimaek 13y agoPushed to CDN too http://www.jsdelivr.com/#!bootstrap http://www.jsdelivr.com/#!bootstrap
- victorhooi 13y agoCurious what people's thoughts on using a CDN for these sorts of things (Bootstrap, JQuery etc) versus deploying it on their own sites. It's an extra DNS query - but thoughts on overall impact on performance?
- Sir_Cmpwn 13y agoI think the idea is that if everyone serves it from the same URL, it's cached before the user sees your page for the first time.
- korzun 13y agoI'm against it for stuff that is not watched like a hawk. For example Google's CDN version of jQuery is fine but I'm not going to use any other random CDN Bootstrap decided to use because I don't trust it. When RC1 came out, the CDN version had a random dev build (90% broken) but on the page they linked to it as RC1. I compared the downloaded version .vs CDN and the files were different. So be careful, if company hosting CDN is not well known or has a good reputation you might screw your self.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ytjohn 13y agoFor public facing web site/blogs, everyone using the same CDN might make your page load faster because there's a good chance a visitor to your site already loaded it from a CDN. So initially I was all for using NetDNA's CDN (they maintain all versions, both css and js). However, over time I revised my opinion. During development, it's usually nicer to have all your static files associated with the project in your project directory. There might also be a situation where you're developing offline (or crappy hotel wifi) and a failed GET just messes up your whole rhythm. Additionally, a lot of my work is internal projects. If I'm throwing together a quick web application, or even just a static site, I use bootstrap's grid, table classes, and icon packs to make that project look nicer. But I felt that for a secure application that can only be reached while on our VPN, it didn't make sense to refer the browser to a piece of javascript running out on the internet. Even if no malicious tracking code is injected into the js, I don't need to give this third party server details like 'REFERRER=https://passwordvault.corp.example.com/?q=jsmith' https://passwordvault.corp.example.com/?q=jsmith'.
- wise_young_man 13y agoThe main Bootstrap site has been updated to 3.1 just a bit ago: http://getbootstrap.com http://getbootstrap.com
- neovive 13y agoOfficial Sass support is great! Looking forward to testing this out on a new project. Big thanks to the Boostrap team for such an amazing project.
- jcomis 13y agoOfficial Sass port. That's pretty big news.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoAt the expense of not Googling it on my own, can someone provide a quick rundown of why this is a big deal? What's the difference between Sass and LESS?
- ncavig 13y agoShort answer; preference.
- ihsw 13y agoOfficial support from the Bootstrap team rather than third-party support. Sass and LESS releases will be hand-in-hand now rather than staggered.
- nawitus 13y agoUsing Bootstrap pretty much meant that you had to use LESS, now you can choose between Sass and LESS. The differences are not that big, though.
- yock 13y agoIn addition to what has been said by others, the Rails asset pipeline supports Sass out of the box. Now Rails developers can use Bootstrap without bringing in third-party LESS support into Rails.
- jcomis 13y agoPreference really. But most of the front-enders I work with seem to prefer Sass for some reason and thus have been pretty dedicated to Foundation in the past. With this official port being introduced it makes bootstrap a more viable option to those who spend most of their time using Sass.
- hackerboos 13y agoYou can copy existing CSS into a SASS project using SCSS.
- CSDude 13y agoI like bootstrap but padding and margins are way too big, I always reduce them via .less they provide. Not everyone has retina display. Or it looks very big still in 1680x1050
- noir_lord 13y agoOut of curiosity what do you find a good alternative, I've noticed they are quite wide myself but never got around to changing it.
- noir_lord 13y agoI absolutely adore Bootstrap (and v3 was a big upgrade). As a primarily backend developer with mediocre at best front end knowledge (and terrible design sense) it is an absolute joy to work with. EDIT: Also reading the blog post they moved license to MIT, this makes me a happy bunny as well.
- kabdib 13y agoI've been using Bootstrap 3 for about three months, and to this kernel hacker new to PHP and web development (for internal apps), it's great. I can do UI that isn't a total train-wreck; what I come up with ain't perfect, but it gets the message across.
- ptr 13y agoThis. But why limit it to internal apps? I do b2b solutions and the services I write using Bootstrap has higher UX quality than what people there are used to. Sometimes I just change the background image and keep the default Bootstrap look. Also, it's so much fun picking out components and putting them together to make it looke awesome.
- noir_lord 13y agoHave a look (if you haven't already seen it) at the SB-Admin theme (v1 and v2), v1 in particular is just a very thing wrapper over stock bootstrap (so much so you can just swap out the core js and css as they get released). It adds a very dashboard-esque appearance without any bloat.
- ptr 13y agoAwesome! Thanks.
- isuraed 13y agoIn the documentation pages they have inexplicably moved the navigation links to the right side.
- mdo 13y agoWe'll see how it goes—if enough folks complain, we can revisit :). I wanted the content to be in the absolute forefront with this update. That meant not affixing the top navbar and downplaying the side nav. I think it's super helpful, but again, I'm open to reversing things again if it'd be better for more folks.
- isuraed 13y agoIt's almost a web standard that navigation links are on the left.
- Kudos 13y agoThat's not really an argument, and that isn't standard navigation to begin with. It's for in-page links and the links highlight as you scroll. I would argue that it's perfectly intuitive.
- vasquez 13y agoI like it this way. Less intrusive, but easy to find when you want it.
- mcallan83 13y agoI like the links on the right, but I think the main navbar should be affixed. Having to scroll all the way up to get back to it is a pain, especially on the longer pages.
- ehutch79 13y agoI prefer the fixed topnav. scrolling all the way up to go between pages sucks. (alternately, a scroll to top link)
- swalsh 13y agoI was playing with this yesterday, what happened to scaffolding?
- gtaylor 13y agoAs someone who still stinks at basic layouts, the extra examples here are really helpful: http://getbootstrap.com/getting-started/#examples http://getbootstrap.com/getting-started/#examples It's good to see how things are done after all of the bells and whistles have been stripped away. None of these are beautiful, but they help illustrate different concepts.
- ahallock 13y agoLove the Sass port. My one complaint with Bootstrap is that its grid system uses float instead of inline-block. Is it easy to use a different grid system with Bootstrap without breaking its other components?
- mdo 13y agoI've not played with `inline-block` grids enough to be honest, but I've made a note to revisit it in v4.
- hobonumber1 13y agoYou should check out Pure's grid system. Works well with Bootstrap. http://purecss.io http://purecss.io Disclaimer: I helped write Pure
- jfc 13y agoThis looks cool. I'm checking it out for an upcoming project.
- Kiro 13y ago> Three new templates: Blog, Cover, and Dashboard. Where can I see them?
- fudged71 13y agoIn the examples here, under custom components: http://getbootstrap.com/getting-started/#examples http://getbootstrap.com/getting-started/#examples
- amouat 13y agoAm I missing something, or do they minify the example code? Why do they do that? Is there an easier to copy/edit version somewhere?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ereckers 13y agoI think Bootsrap is minified, but the HTML and custom CSS for each example is available.
- amouat 13y agoI phrased it badly when I said "minified". The HTML is available, but it's not nicely formatted - all the whitespace is gone etc. I understand this saves a few bytes but it makes life harder for anyone that tries to edit it. It seems so strange to me that no-one else is complaining that I wonder if a nicely formatted version is available and I'm being stupid. EDIT: This seems to have changed! Either I did something really stupid before or they have updated the HTML for the examples.
- mdo 13y agoWe've not changed anything. Unsure what you saw, but the examples' HTML has never been minified.
- johnatwork 13y agoThe main advantages of Zurb was that it was using Sass, now that Bootstrap uses Sass, I wonder if it will win back some users.
- pearjuice 13y agoMeanwhile: youmightnotneedbootstrap.com
- freshyill 13y agoQuestion: If you were developing a large, content-driven site, would you bother with Bootstrap? Bootstrap seemed a bit like overkill when I had to use it in my old job. The CSS and markup seemed excessive, and the strict JS was kind of a pain to deal with. I know I can get something that looks half-decent up and running quickly with it, but if I'm not planning to take any visual design from it, is there much of an advantage? Is Bootstrap's grid so great in any way that I really should be using it?
- jwcooper 13y agoBootstrap 3 is much nicer to use than previous versions, if that's what you were using in the past. Each element is more of a barebones styling to it, which makes it easier to get what you want out of them (such as buttons). I spent a lot of time in previous versions of bootstrap just stripping out text-shadows, border-radius, gradients, and more just to get it back to a basic component. The grid in the Boostrap 3 is pretty useful if your requirements are for a responsive layout. It really makes it pretty simple to get things going, but does pollute your html with a lot of cruft as you sometimes need to define each size within a single class attribute. One other thing I've found is that it makes the site more maintainable, as it's easier for others to understand your CSS and layouts. It's the equivalent to being able to hire a Java programmer that knows the Spring Framework (they're plentiful, and usually know enough to not break things). The same is the case for Bootstrap. By having a common and popular framework, you have more developers that can jump right into your front-end quickly. Also, it's easy enough to customize[1] to get only what you need. If all you need is the grids, just remove everything else. No need for the js components. [1] http://getbootstrap.com/customize/ http://getbootstrap.com/customize/
- neovive 13y agoGreat point. Instant familiarity for other developers is definitely a big plus when using a well-known framework such as Bootstrap. No matter how well you structure your site and name your classes, there is always an added learning curve when working with a completely custom codebase.
- applecore 13y ago
- bricss 13y agoTWBS, you've made my day!
- simonhamp 13y agoShameless plug: don't forget for totally free promotion of your Bootstrap-based projects, submit your creations on http://builtwithbootstrap.com http://builtwithbootstrap.com :)
- nnq 13y ago...and they still haven't moved to "sanity" by adding/supporting: * { box-sizing: border-box; } the line that I start all my CSS with nowadays. Quote from their docs: > Some third party software, including Google Maps and Google Custom Search Engine, conflict with Bootstrap due to * { box-sizing: border-box; }, a rule which makes it so padding does not affect the final computed width of an element.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- cmicali 13y agoThey switched to border-box in 3.0. Note in 3.0 release notes: http://blog.getbootstrap.com/2013/08/19/bootstrap-3-released/ http://blog.getbootstrap.com/2013/08/19/bootstrap-3-released... Code at top of scaffolding.less: https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/blob/master/less/scaffolding.less https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/blob/master/less/scaffoldi...
- mdo 13y agoNot sure why you'd think that—we've had it the last five months, since v3 dropped.
- tranche 13y agoWhen Bootstrap 3.0 was released one of the top comments on HN was a hallelujah for adding/supporting this very feature.
- enos_feedler 13y agoI was really hoping they would be able to come up with a simple way to turn on/off hovering in the distribution (without having to rebuild). Hovering provides unwanted "sticky" active states on touch-based devices. Given BS3 is suppose to be mobile-first I am surprised they let this go.
- mdo 13y agoOpen an issue (with suggestions?) and we'll check it out.
- jfc 13y agoWhen are they going to add something like Foundation's block grid? That really comes in handy. (Note: I use both Foundation and Bootstrap). Block grid docs - http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/block_grid.html http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/block_grid.html
- usaphp 13y agoUnless I am missing something, but I was able to easily reproduce it with current bootstrap styles: http://jsfiddle.net/MgcDU/8706/ http://jsfiddle.net/MgcDU/8706/
- roryokane 13y agoThe release notes on the Bootstrap Blog are better: http://blog.getbootstrap.com/2014/01/30/bootstrap-3-1-0-released/ http://blog.getbootstrap.com/2014/01/30/bootstrap-3-1-0-rele.... That page gives an overview of the biggest changes, with screenshots, before listing every change individually. It also mentions a change missing from GitHub changelog: the release of an official Sass port (https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap-sass https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap-sass).
- thatthatis 13y agoBootstrap raised the lowest common denominator from a 2 to about 35. You can still put together a horrid UI with bad spacing and mismatched fonts, but you have to go out of your way to get UI quality below 20. If you have the skills to write 90+ UIs from scratch, you probably get little out of bootstrap, unless you're rapidly prototyping and need a 65% UI in four hours. It's a great tool that improved both the minimum level of the web and the efficiency with which good UIs can be built. If you don't need it, that's great, you're a highly skilled specialist. But it is still an extremely valuable tool for large swaths of the web.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- owenversteeg 13y agoPersonally, I don't like Bootstrap. It's difficult to modify, requires jQuery and its own massive JS file, and is huge. Compare that to Min, the extremely small (995 bytes) CSS framework. It has a Bootstrap to Min converter, has near-feature parity with Bootstrap, and is very easy to use. http://minfwk.com http://minfwk.com (Disclaimer: I wrote Min.)
- andyhmltn 13y ago>It's difficult to modify The CSS is easy to change IMO. Because you can just override it. >requires jQuery and its own massive JS file, and is huge. Fair point on jQuery but you can use the customiser to get rid of most of the JS you won't use
- eklavya 13y agoIt saves just too much time to not be using it. It's a very productive tool.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- andyhmltn 13y agoFairly painless upgrade as well. We are using TWBS 3.0 on an internal admin system. I just dropped the new bootstrap-sass gem into rails and it was done. There are a few things that needed to be changed: 1) The button text is now huge 2) For some reason the forms all screwed up when using a: <label> Name <input> </label> Layout
- sldfjasldkjf 13y agojaskldjfsadf