Changes of note:<p>"Interchange uses media queries to dynamically load responsive content that is appropriate for different users' browsers.”<p><a href="http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/interchange.html" rel="nofollow">http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/interchange.html</a><p>Offcanvas Javascript (Originally bolt-on, not bundled)<p><a href="http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/offcanvas.html" rel="nofollow">http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/offcanvas.html</a><p>"Abide is an HTML5 form validation library that supports the native API by using patterns and required attributes."<p><a href="http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/abide.html" rel="nofollow">http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/abide.html</a><p>Zepto support has been removed from Foundation 5.<p>Docs are continuing to look better, and they still have docs back to Foundation v2.<p>Thanks Zurb!
I'm puzzled about the switch from camelCase to snake_case for JS as shown in <a href="http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/upgrading.html#javascript-variable-changes" rel="nofollow">http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/upgrading.html#javascript-va...</a>. The clear convention in JavaScript is camelCase, why switch <i>away</i> from it? (I say this as someone who in normal life using Python and Rust uses and prefers snake_case but who uses camelCase when writing JavaScript.)
Wow, that was fast !<p>I love Foundation, but I had to switch to Boostrap because I found it... ugly. And Bootstrap is great to quickly create "pretty" prototypes. But I've always found Foundation having better... foundations. I've used both on numerous projects and here's my take :<p>* The grid system now looks like bootstrap, and I don't like that. You have to choose the type of column you want to use (and I don't want to be bothered by that). so no .six anymore, it's .medium-6 or .large-6 or .small-6... They should call the .small-6 just .six so we know its the default one.<p>* It does look a bit better, although they removed styling of the radiobox in forms? Why?<p>* Overall I still prefer bootstrap's theme, I wish Foundation would offer an optional theme like bootstrap 3 does.<p>* OffCanvas menu is great ! I can already see plenty of applications (but for mobile only)<p>* The CLI is a nice thing to have but I'm gonna stay away from it. I like the easiness of copypasting files to quickly begin a small project.<p>* Documentation is hard to go through, doesn't allow to glance at what it offers. It's a huge improvement from F4 or F3 though.<p>* I use sublime text snippets all the time and this might be a huge addition!<p>* I like the JS that verifies forms. I usually always use this on my projects so it's nice to have it by default.<p>Overall I don't really know if I should switch back to Foundation. But I'll definitely use it for my next project to see how good it is.
I looked at the project on Github [1] and the latest tagged release is 4.3.2. It seems odd that they'd release 5.0 for download on their website before tagging it on Github; is there a particular reason for that?<p>1: <a href="https://github.com/zurb/foundation" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/zurb/foundation</a>
Can you explain the benefit of defining media queries with em's rather than pixels? It seems like an unnecessary layer of mental translation for developers, given that you deem it necessary to list px-equivalents in the CSS comments. [1]<p>Also, the medium/large screen sizes in Interchange don't align with the media query sizes. Interchange says 1024px wide is large, [2] but the media query says 1024px wide is medium. Or is it just a documentation error?<p>[1] <a href="http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/media-queries.html" rel="nofollow">http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/media-queries.html</a><p>[2] <a href="http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/interchange.html#named-queries" rel="nofollow">http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/interchange.html#...</a>
So for the HTML deficient are there any template sites for foundation yet? These exist for bootstrap, and for someone who doesn't have even a single bone of design talent in his body they're a godsend.
Damn, it's gone completely broken on old firefox engines <a href="http://i.imgur.com/HAR8Rjz.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/HAR8Rjz.png</a> (yeah I'm still using Camino when I can get away with it)
Looks like it dropped support for IE8, which unfortunately eliminates this as an option for a lot of client work. Seems like a solid go-to for more forward-thinking projects though.
I'm more curious about this which is mentioned on the page: <a href="https://github.com/hcatlin/libsass/" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/hcatlin/libsass/</a> has anyone got it working with rails? Faster SASS compilation would make life much better (especially when bootstrap or compass are involved).
I think it's worth noting that Bootstrap and Foundation may not be comparing apples to apples.<p>Bootstrap has more styles so you can...bootstrap. Foundation is meant to be a foundation to build on.<p>That being said, of course their functionality is very close, but be aware of the core differences in outlook between the 2.
Foundation is without a doubt the nicest CSS framework I have ever used. It really, really helps me, as a programmer, create amazing interfaces without much effort at all. Combined with SASS and it's a winning combination.<p>Can't wait to start playing with version 5.
One thing that seems utterly absurd is that now you need to have <i>two</i> ecosystems to build <i>one</i> project - both node and and ruby. Seeing as it is uses libsass to build now, why not ditch the ruby cli and port it to node?
The Interchange plugin saved my butt on a recent project. Client wanted to have 5 different images for different sizes, it was a breeze to setup even when having to integrate it with the supersized slider.
Is Foundation better than Bootstrap? I'm genuinely curious, as they seem functionality equivalent.<p>Of course, one uses SASS and one uses LESS. I knew LESS, so I picked Bootstrap.<p>But I'm more than willing to switch.
Can anyone tell me how to make a split button / dropdown that goes upwards (dropup)? This is one thing bootstrap has which I've been missing in foundation.
On the one hand it's never been a better time to be a front end dev, and on the other it's absolutely crazy how fast front end technology is progressing the last couple years. I just caught on to Foundation 4 in the last 4 months or so, and now here's a new release that's way more evolved. Amazing.<p>Thanks to the Zurb team! I'll definitely be ripping off lots of ideas for my company's tortoise-speed Drupal sites.
I've tried to use Foundation before and it's responsive grid was ghastly. This was the first time I tried anything responsive mind you. So I jumped towards Bootstrap 3 and it's grid was phenomal to use.<p>Predictable, simple and quick to iterate - everything I wanted.<p>I'm going to give this release a try. The interchangable items based on device widths looks fantastic! I'm really excited to give Zurb a try. :)
What's the recommended way to use this with a python dev environment?<p>I'd rather not have to install ruby too just to rebuild the css. When one of these is announced I usually find myself navigating the various poorly-maintained python modules that process the source files, get lost, give up, and go back to plain css.<p>Perhaps I could just add a bit of css to a static build instead? Are there any shortcomings to that?
When I was choosing a framework for a redesign for my blog (switching from Bootstrap since it was getting cumbersome), I decided to try out UIkit, since I ended up not needing any of the JavaScript plugins or super-fancy CSS effects.<p>However, after taking a look at Foundation 5's plugins, I will definitely try using the framework if I need to undertake a website with more ambitious functionality.
I'm new to web design and have been experimenting with a few other development environments. Reading through these comments I became excited to learn more about foundation. I went to their site and looked at their site examples. Many of them were broken and didn't seem to work as intended, nor were they very beautiful to the uninitiated. This was on a desktop using chrome. I didn't bother to check with my mobile.<p>My main platform so far has been extremely buggy too and is not even primarily made to create websites. I've been using Google Web Designer. Take my advice with a grain of salt as I represent hobbyist developers who thought "hey, i'd like to build a site. what tool should I start with?" I would not invest $200 to enroll in your intro course for something that gave me an initial first impression of being flimsy. However, it is equally likely that I am unable to realize the full potential of your product with my limited understanding of web development at first glance.<p>I'm excited about seeing how Macaw works and am going to begin a new project with Bootstrap soon. While my main focus has been purely static web design I plan to incorporate dynamic applications within my approach very soon.
I would just like to say that I love Foundation! Kudos to the team and congrats on the new release. I look forward to exploring the new version. That being said, I am not really digging the new documentation page. The sample code containers should have a non-white background or at least some kind of a border.
I don't know why (maybe I'm just not good with css and html in general), but I'm always confused when looking at these grid systems. Trying to use zurb in a project now and I'm kinda lost. Any good resources other than their docs for sort of showing how to use zurb in a full project?
Congrats ! Looks like a big release.<p>Some pain points from using Foundation (4) in our latest project:
* topbar sucks
* custom forms are horrible (they seem to have been removed from 5, or maybe justs the docs are missing)<p>Also, using under_score instead of camelCase in javascript is a questionable choice with no real benefits.
I switched from Foundation 4 to Flatstrap (a version of Bootstrap) instead because I like the flat UI. v4 had many problems with JS and especially topbar was never good enough. I ended up creating my own topbar which is not ideal. Also the lack of fixed cols is a big issue for desktop design.
Is clicking on Learn suppose to drop the page like this <a href="http://imgur.com/yH9OKB3" rel="nofollow">http://imgur.com/yH9OKB3</a>? Happens on both Chrome and Firefox.
How is their inclusion of a medium break point not at the top of this thread? This is the most significant and noticeable addition to the Framework IMO.
already foundation 5. I've only just had two dates with foundation 4. Between foundation and Jeet, I'm so stoked to have these to work and collaborate on.
I use Bootstrap, but it looks to me like Foundation5 is a better framework and is making faster progress. Especially I like Foundations use of SASS.<p>Problem is - some widgets I depend on - like date-pickers and X-Editable - only support Bootstrap.