TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

State of Bootstrap 4 vs. Foundation

169 pointsby caseyf7about 9 years ago

22 comments

ukyrgfabout 9 years ago
One thing Foundation is doing that I haven&#x27;t seen done anywhere else is Foundation for Emails (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;foundation.zurb.com&#x2F;emails.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;foundation.zurb.com&#x2F;emails.html</a>). It&#x27;s a build process that lets you design responsive HTML email templates that will work in most clients. There are so many quirks in Outlook, Gmail, etc that its nearly impossible to keep up, so it&#x27;s great to have a team of people dedicated to abstracting it away for designers.
code_researchabout 9 years ago
A few things about Foundation 6:<p>You do not need to include the whole javascript, you can include just the things you need. However, there have been problems with webpack and Foundation javascript developers seem to have no clue about what is going on in the JS frontend world, acting like isolated on a moon station, disconnected, what leads to problems with integrating other things.<p>Very problematic is they still have FOUC problems - you have to look for various workarounds, but FOUC out of the box! The menu components and everything related to responsiveness suffer from it. I do not understand how this ever got released.<p>Foundation 5 was ok, but this 6 release is disappointing. The modular handling of menus is a good idea, but overall execution is bad, lots of micro-problems everywhere, it feels not even pre-alpha. Also very monolithic and non-cooperative, ugly to integrate with anything else.<p>I would recommend looking at semantic ui instead, which also has a good react integration, something Foundation designers do not have ever thought about.<p>About the community: the people are great, but Zurb gives them only a totally annoying &quot;forum&quot; that is not able to filter for versions, so when you are searching for things you get all the stuff from previous versions, an information design nightmare, that would be easy to fix, but they do not even seem to have a problem with it - this says a lot about the agency behind it.<p>Also be careful with installing foundation globally: it will overwrite your Foundation 5 binary, if you are using this, be careful. Not a serious problem, but when you still want to use F5 you have to prepare for it! Even with version 6 they still do not have a clue how to handle versioning, this tells a lot about the code quality you will be confronted with.<p>But they have great marketing, the site and everything around F6 looks really great!
yoavmabout 9 years ago
It&#x27;s 2016 and Bootstrap still doesn&#x27;t have native RTL support. Foundation had it (excellently) since 2013. When I&#x27;m building something for the local market, this has a major affect on my decision.
评论 #11381329 未加载
评论 #11388204 未加载
neoviveabout 9 years ago
I currently use Bootstrap, but have been looking at Bourbon recently along with it&#x27;s suite of components (Neat, Bitters and Refills). It offers a nice set of mixins for semantic grids and common components. My only concern is working with other developers where Bootstrap is almost a common language.
评论 #11381467 未加载
评论 #11381395 未加载
评论 #11382019 未加载
cmdkeenabout 9 years ago
The key unanswered question, and for me the fundamental reason I switched from using Bootstrap to Foundation at work, is how designer friendly the two are.<p>Bootstrap is fantastic when you want a site that looks like Bootstrap, these tend to be put together by developers. Foundation (at least was) much less opinionated and therefore when you&#x27;re given a PSD by a designer much easier to implement.<p>Have things improved on that front? Is it easy to override Bootstrap&#x27;s defaults?
评论 #11382196 未加载
评论 #11380994 未加载
评论 #11382440 未加载
评论 #11383674 未加载
评论 #11381776 未加载
olouvabout 9 years ago
I&#x27;ve been a big fan of bootstrap, but I find that these CSS frameworks are becoming more and more irrelevant in the age of widespread flexbox support. CSS modules do put the last nail in the coffin.
评论 #11380799 未加载
评论 #11380460 未加载
评论 #11380759 未加载
评论 #11380738 未加载
评论 #11380661 未加载
评论 #11381805 未加载
cpbothaabout 9 years ago
The link is indeed down.<p>Here&#x27;s the Google Cache version for your reading pleasure: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcache.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;search?q=cache:http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dannyherran.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;03&#x2F;state-of-affairs-bootstrap-4-vs-foundation-6&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcache.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;search?q=cache:http:&#x2F;&#x2F;...</a>
dherranabout 9 years ago
This is Danny here. I didn&#x27;t expect this much traffic so I am sorting out the database connection issues. The server is overloaded. Sorry for the inconvenience!
评论 #11381111 未加载
Sir_Cmpwnabout 9 years ago
My concern with both of these is that I&#x27;m slapping classes on all of my UI everywhere. Why can&#x27;t a button just get all of the bootstrap btn styles automatically? Why not have forms look right just by selecting the elements that make them up? This is a problem for Foundation too. Does anyone know why they have chosen to do this?
评论 #11382812 未加载
评论 #11381549 未加载
评论 #11381544 未加载
duxetabout 9 years ago
I would like to see a comparison of BS4 with Semantic UI, it has a few pretty interesting components
评论 #11380840 未加载
评论 #11380365 未加载
stevoskiabout 9 years ago
Bootstrap 4 seems to be the clear winner, according to the article.<p>If you want to start designing with it already (which is not a great idea; it <i>is</i> still alpha), here&#x27;s a Bootstrap 4 PSD template you can use: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hackerthemes.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;bootstrap-4-psd-template" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hackerthemes.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;bootstrap-4-psd-template</a>
评论 #11380732 未加载
joekrillabout 9 years ago
Do any modern CSS frameworks not rely on jQuery? I&#x27;m rather surprised that so many still do.
评论 #11381012 未加载
评论 #11380833 未加载
评论 #11381236 未加载
hit8runabout 9 years ago
Wow an alpha version is recommended for production. What world are we living in?! :D I tested BS4 but the alpha tag makes me too nervous to use it in production. Things will break and some things are still not there yet (talking about navigation in bs4).
评论 #11380756 未加载
评论 #11383010 未加载
评论 #11382315 未加载
colorcontrastabout 9 years ago
I was hoping for a comparison of out-of-box accessibility between the two frameworks.
robertwalsh0about 9 years ago
I prefer Foundation because I think the grid system is superior as suggested by the author and I think it&#x27;s much easier to style in such a way that the site looks like your own. As many have pointed out, many &#x27;Bootstrap&#x27; sites look like &#x27;Bootstrap&#x27; sites. My biggest gripe about Foundation is that beyond Mad Mimi&#x27;s Foundation 5 port there aren&#x27;t as many high quality tools to use Angular with Foundation compared to all the Bootstrap Angular tools.
KayLabout 9 years ago
Foundation dropped IE8 and below supports at very early stage. I think it caused them losing the Community.
评论 #11380209 未加载
评论 #11380319 未加载
评论 #11380237 未加载
评论 #11380483 未加载
me_bxabout 9 years ago
Any opinions about uikit [0]?<p>From the presentation it look pretty full-featured and modular, I&#x27;d be interested to know what people who tried it think...<p>[0]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;getuikit.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;getuikit.com&#x2F;</a>
评论 #11382557 未加载
GaiusCoffeeabout 9 years ago
Link is down for me: Error establishing a database connection.<p>* <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.isup.me&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dannyherran.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;03&#x2F;state-of-affairs-bootstrap-4-vs-foundation-6&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.isup.me&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dannyherran.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;03&#x2F;state-of-a...</a>
评论 #11379949 未加载
brickcapabout 9 years ago
Has anyone tried some of the newer css frameworks? Lots of them are listed on cssdb [1]. I especially like skeleton [2].<p>[1]<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cssdb.co&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cssdb.co&#x2F;</a><p>[2]<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;getskeleton.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;getskeleton.com&#x2F;</a>
评论 #11380901 未加载
评论 #11380657 未加载
评论 #11381449 未加载
TheOneTrueKyleabout 9 years ago
I am a big fan of creating my own framework, but I have used Foundation in the past due to their earlier adoption of SASS mixins. However, I am just now hearing of Foundation for Emails and that looks like could save a lot of headaches
guylepage3about 9 years ago
IMO, Bootstrap v4 is much stronger than Foundation for many reasons. Here&#x27;s one...<p>b4 has a much stronger &quot;foundation.&quot; What do I mean by that? Well to be honest if you actually look at the HTML structure of both frameworks, you&#x27;ll see that b4 is not only utilizing more modern techniques but that they have reduced and simplified their markup. ie, navigation items. b4 uses &lt;div&gt;&#x27;s for each nav element which allows for more control while foundation is using an older technique of unordered list items.<p>This is just one example of how b4 takes a more wholistic approach to every aspect of their framework. I don&#x27;t fault foundation at all and it probably has to due with the talent of the core b4 team as well as the massive community that they have, but I can&#x27;t see a use case where I&#x27;d choose foundation over b4.
jbrooksukabout 9 years ago
Seems like the post could&#x27;ve done with a read through before publishing.
评论 #11380010 未加载