So, what does Holla Forums think about Bootstrap? And not just Bootstrap the framework, but also about its design decisions and UI definition paradigm.
In other words, what do you think about:
If you don't like Bootstrap, how much would you scrap out of it, and how much would you keep?
Other urls found in this thread:
motherfuckingwebsite.com
bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com
materializecss.com
bestmotherfucking.website
twitter.com
Fuck those bloated "responsive" frameworks, motherfuckingwebsite.com
I like it. It's pretty consistent and I can get a decent looking layout up pretty quickly.
The 12 column thing is a bit opinionated. Obviously it's slightly arbitrary, but on the whole I've found little reason for more precision.
In the new version they've claimed to have a done a complete rewrite, cut / merged some components, and have switched to using flexbox. It also seems to deal with some of the more aggressive nesting that 3 currently uses.
There are surely other, slimmer layout frameworks, but I myself am pretty fond of Bootstrap's features beyond the 12 column layout.
Aaaaand there's the problem.
I've stopped using bootstrap a while ago and started using materializecss.com
I've used that as well. Coming from bootstrap it was a bit weird, but I do like how the layout classes have shorter names. What I don't like is some of the greater nesting required, if I'm remembering my time with it correctly. It definitely seems a bit heavier on the javascript for visual effects as well.
Dropped.
What browser you using? Those are supposed to be icon fonts, but instead of using classes you write the intended icon between the tags.
works fine for me, he's probably using some autistic shit like Furrymoon
It's Firefox with NoScript. I whitelisted the domain and it started working, but it's still not a very good impression considering the Bootstrap website or Skeleton render flawlessly without JS.
It's a bit heavier but it does so much more
Well, that specific feature does require scripting.
But to comment on bootstrap's use, I think it's mainly restricted to navbars, carousels, and modals. I'm not sure the extent of Materialize, but I think it has much more to do stuff like animations.
Bootstrap works "fine" without JS. Obviously you won't get some of the fanciest features but it's still fairly good without it.
bestmotherfucking.website is the best.
Why do all of these have JS in them? What the fuck is so hard about making a pure CSS?
I work with bootstrap at work for our store page. I can summarize some pros and cons for people.
Pros:
Neat col class that allows divisions of 12 sections. Split any content in 2, 3, 4, 6 pieces with ease.
Change general theme of the bootstrap choosing from Windows 10 start menu to Windows XP styled buttons with a click.
Block tags like pre comes with default eye candy.
Supports glyph icons.
Cons:
Slower than your grandmother. 5 seconds to render a page? Get used to it granny.
CSS files that will hang Atom when opened. Map files must be rendered on one line remember.
Confusing documentation for beginners.
No fancy functionality other than tables and mobile adaptation.
Overall, it's a good starter CSS for the person that doesn't want to spend hours making the website user friendly. Some parts of it works without JavaScript but in general, expect it to be slow.
My company uses a store for website and we have users browsing the store regardless of the slow loading times. I wonder if customers would appreciate the website more if it was snappier, rather than eye candy'd.
Jewgle is the new normal. Fuck this shit.
Bootstrap is OK, the only thing I don't like is that the menu dropdowns require JavaScript, but I have never seen a menu with on-click dropdowns that works without JavaScript. Maybe the new tag will be able to do that, but it isn't implemented properly anywhere yet.
I don't get what you mean. Is there any way other than CSS for websites?
It's mostly an arbitrary choice. The advantage of using 12 is that it is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12, so you have quite a lot of flexibility with how to distribute your coloumns. Any other close number would be too restrictive, and if you wanted to find another number that's this flexible it would be too high.
It's cool that they are switching the grid system to be based on Flexbox for version 4, Flexbox is one of the best features to have come to CSS. It would have been even better if they used the actual CSS grid feature, but that one is still not supported widely enough yet.
I would remove some of the components like the carousel, page header, thumbnails, media objects, those are better done with custom code or from a library.
Quick question for freelance web dev fags. When you make a new project, let's say you build a site for a restaurant. You make their menu page, customer reviews, some pictures of the restaurant, etc. What gets delivered? Do you write specific software that allows them to edit their webpages if they want to add some new pages? Or do you just directly send them the html and css files and they should manage making new pages if they want to from there by editing the html files?
I just wonder, is it as simple as designing a css for their site, making a bunch of html pages and then expecting them to add the rest of the content once you did your part of the work?
Not for websites, but SWT and GTK or Qt (can't remember if it was both) have some "square-based" tooling system in which you define GUI relative to their position of a square in the center which sucks less than using raw CSS for layout since it's just about layout and not for fucking everything.
The answer for this is always "what's in the contract"
Yikes. Why?
This kind of shit was needed up to like 5 years ago because of differences in web browsers and shitty defaults.
These days you just don't need bootstrap, nor jquery for that matter.
If you still want to use a framework semantic-ui is better than bootstrap.