Bootstrap/Drupal or Drupal/Bootstrap

I'm about to begin developing a website with Bootstrap 4. Eventually, I would like to incorporate Drupal CMS.

Or I could start with the Drupal Bootstrap Base template and go from there.

If I choose the second approach, will I lose some freedom of design? Will the template significantly limit my options?

Thanks.

 

You'll lose freedom of design both from Drupal and Bootstrap. You'll be shoehorning your project to that software, instead of developing the software from the requirements of your project.

Check this out: http://cutcodedown.com/article/HTML_CSS_and_JS_frameworks

 

It's not just freedom of design, it's the GIANT MIDDLE FINGER to accessibility and usability I'd be worried about given what mind-numbingly idiotic halfwit BULLSHIT bootcrap is. You're just learning bad habits and improper methodologies with that mental huffing midgetry!

See your other thread, the ONLY thing you can learn from bootcrap is how NOT to build a website!

 

Well since you said your going to develop a website with 'Bootstrap 4' I assume that you know exactly how HTML/CSS works, with that in mind you can go either of the two.

Based on my experience you won't lose the freedom of restructuring/redesigning it. Of course you can update it base on your designs.

The problem I see is that... If your unsure how to use Bootstrap or edit an existing 'Drupal Bootstrap Base template' then you can't go further with your project.

I hope this help.

 

I'm not sure how exactly you were referring that we can't build a website using bootstrap for there are many websites being built with bootstrap.
I can say that bootstrap is not perfect, but to be honest it helps many developer to develop a website.

 

Broken slow inaccessible websites with zero graceful degradation, and that took MORE effort to create because despite the wild claims IT IS NOT EASIER... since it forces you to WRITE MORE CODE than you'd have written WITHOUT the framework!!! NOT even counting the (ape-shit absurd) size of the framework against it, there is damned little that belongs on a website that bootcrap can do that can't be done in less code without it!

Everything it teaches you to do, from slopping classes into your markup for presentational use, to the layout concepts it promotes, to the over-reliance on extra code that serves no purpose apart from making development harder both from a creation and maintenance viewpoint, is the ANTITHESIS of sane and rational design. You might be able to DELUDE yourself into THINKING you've made a website with it, but more often than not all one has accomplished is squeezing out a pile and then dumping a can of shellac on it!

Hence I stand by my statement. It teaches you to do HTML wrong, to do CSS wrong, to do layouts wrong, so the ONLY thing you can learn from it is how NOT to build a website since everything about it is WRONG! It is fundamentally flawed in concept alone right to the core!

 

I'm still confuse on your statement, because it really helps many developer to build a website.

Definitely not. Maybe not perfect.

And again, the only problem I see when using any library or a framework is on how you really understand it.

 

No. It helps unqualified noobs to build websites. For obtuse definitions of "help". There is absolutely no reason to use Bootstrap. If you know HTML / CSS, there is no point in using it, because you can output a better solution with less code in half the time, and if you don't know HTML / CSS, you shouldn't be making websites. It is that simple.

No, actually, pretty much everything Bootstrap does by default, is wrong. They abuse HTML and CSS and while doing so, they manage to fuck up mostly everything written in the standards. That is by itself an achievement, but not a good one.

Well. Using a framework or library isn't necessarily bad. But for Bootstrap, what it does is add at least a 25% code-increase, usually more, and what they do with that added code goes against every "good code" approach that exist for HTML / CSS. There really isn't anything good coming from it.

Claiming that it helps devs creating websites isn't really a boost - it just means the devs using it either doesn't know what they're doing, or is chosing to go the path of least resistance because they either work somewhere where Bootstrap has been chosen as the solution, and is too afraid to say "fuck no". Sorry, but seriously, there is really no reason for using Bootstrap for anything.

 

No, it only makes them THINK it helped, when what it really did was bent them over the table and told them to squeal like a pig.

The only reason to choose one would be failing to grasp the most basic parts of HTML and CSS. A complete lack of understanding those is the ONLY reason ANY developer would be ignorant enough or foolhardy enough to think something like bootcrap is doing ANYTHING of value for them!

But hey, money where mouth is; you claim to be a front end developer with an understanding of UX (something your statements in this thread directly contradicts) do you have an example of a well written accessible page made with bootcrap that actually meets WCAG minimums, isn't two times the markup and as much if not more CSS than it would have without the framework (again NOT counting the size of the framework against it) and not filled with goofy bandwidth wasting garbage that exists for nothing more than "gee ain't it neat" bull created by artists under the DELUSION they are "designers" when they don't know enough about accessibility, usability, HTML, or CSS to be designing a blasted thing?

'cause I've NEVER SEEN IT!

I have NEVER seen ANYTHING built with bootcrap that wasn't more code, more work, harder to have been built, harder to maintain than would have been created without it. Doesn't seem to exist which is why for all the WILD NONSENSICAL FAIRY TALE CLAIMS about it being magically "easier" that is endlessly parroted -- again, "the big lie" -- it is anything but "easier" or "simpler" or even "faster to develop". It fails to live up to ANY of the things people seem to claim it's for!