Which JavaScript library have the highest compatibility rate for Bootstrap framework?

Which among JavaScript libraries' React, Angular, Vue and others, have the highest compatibility rate for Bootstrap framework that are less-prone to error?

Is there a standard Bootstrap starter template for Angular, for React or else?
What library you're going to choose if you're using Bootstrap?

Any additional information that will clarify this will appreciated!

 

So lemme get thsi straight -- you want to take derp, and slather herp all over it, correct?

Maybe if you lost the idiotic halfwit mouth-breathing dumbass pointlessly redundant framework asshattery, and bothered learning how to use HTML, CSS, and JS properly you wouldn't have these types of concerns?

The only thing you can learn from bootcrap is how NOT to build a website -- and using those STUPID malfing dipshit front end scripttard train wrecks on top of them flipping the double bird at user experience and accessibility? That's just dumping a can of shellac on a pile. At the end of the day all you've got is bug excrement on horse manure.

 

So you want to say is to choose only Bootstrap or any of those JavaScript libraries and don't use Bootstrap with any of those libraries?
Is that what you want to express?

 

Wow, English must be what? Your fourth language? fifth?

I'm saying don't use ANY of them! Learn to use HTML, CSS, and JavaScript properly and you don't need ANY of that asshat nonsense. Frameworks are universally rubbish be they HTML/CSS or JavaScript, and just slopping together different ones only makes things WORSE.

Even if you use one of them, you are 99.99% of the time pissing on separation of presentation from content, graceful degradation, and accessibility, sleazing out broken inaccessible train wreck laundry lists of how NOT to build a website.

ANYONE who tells you ANY of that bootcrap, react, angular, mootools, yui, or any other mind-numbingly dumbass halfwit gargage "framework" is useful, 'easier', 'faster', or 'simpler to develop' is talking out their arse and has little if any business even flapping their gums on the topic of building a website!

They are at BEST a sleazy shortcut, at worst nube-predating scam-artist hoodoo voodoo that only gets propagated and promoted due to echo-chamber circle-jerks and people too ignorant or too stupid to know them as anything more than sick buzzwords!

 

I'd want to see you saying that to a company of any sort looking for a website (so to say). Be real.

 

I do it all the time -- USUALLY when bailing a company out of the bloated inaccessible broken messes second rate scam artists have DUPED the ignorant into thinking is a website, even as it lands them with fines in the UK and civil litigation all over the world.

Or as their reliance on those technologies in fact INCREASE hosting costs, cost them traffic, cost them search rankings due to the engines that matter (Google and Yandex) now penalizing slow loading sites, and all the other pimp-slaps of reality deploying a REAL BUSINESS WEBSITE runs the danger of.

I've NEVER seen ANYTHING built with client side frameworks -- like bootcrap or jquery or whatever -- that wouldn't have been faster to develop, easier to maintain, far FAR less code NOT even counting the framework size against it, more useful to users, accessible to more users, and in general several hundred times better without them!

In the traditional "If you don't know what's wrong with THIS:"

    <nav class="navbar navbar-inverse navbar-fixed-top">
      <div class="container">
        <div class="navbar-header">
          <button type="button" class="navbar-toggle collapsed" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#navbar" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="navbar">
            <span class="sr-only">Toggle navigation</span>
            <span class="icon-bar"></span>
            <span class="icon-bar"></span>
            <span class="icon-bar"></span>
          </button>
          <a class="navbar-brand" href="#">Project name</a>
        </div>
        <div id="navbar" class="navbar-collapse collapse">
          <form class="navbar-form navbar-right">
            <div class="form-group">
              <input type="text" placeholder="Email" class="form-control">
            </div>
            <div class="form-group">
              <input type="password" placeholder="Password" class="form-control">
            </div>
            <button type="submit" class="btn btn-success">Sign in</button>
          </form>
        </div><!--/.navbar-collapse -->
      </div>
    </nav>

Code (markup):

"You have ZERO damned business making websites for other people" kind of way!

For those of you who don't get it, endless pointless DIV for nothing, SPAN for nothing, button for scripttardery doing CSS' job, no fieldsets, placeholder is not a label, and endless pointless halfwit presentational classes just crapped all over everything.

Though to be fair, the same could be said of mind-numbingly dumbass asshat RUBBISH like class="col-sm-2 col-md-3 col-lg-4" -- you don't know what's wrong with that, you don't know enough about HTML or CSS to be building websites in the first damned place, or have simply failed to extract your cranium from 1997's rectum at which point, you might as well go back to sleazing out presentational HTML 3.2 and telling users with accessibility needs to go **** themselves. Presentational classes, as half-assed an approach to site-building as <center>, <font>, or border=""!

You know, how BUSINESSMEN speak... in a "This squid is so undercooked it's still telling Sponebob to ***** off" Gordon Ramsey kind of way. I've utterly run out of patience with the soft-spoken don't make waves don't you DARE point out the failings in ANYTHING namby pamby wussy bullshit that only lets the scam artists continue to prey on the ignorant and foolhardy! LESS, SASS, Bootcrap, jQuery, YUI, React -- bloated unnecessary trash that if you think serves ANY legitimate purpose in building a website, you quite clearly are unqualified to flap your gums on the bloody topic!

Seriously, I wish the lemmings who think that shite is worth using would reach that huffing cliff-face already and stop poisoning the web with their ignorant halfwit BS Every ****ing bootstrap site ever chazerei.

 

Where's the Like button?

People like you (assuming no one else wrote that in your place) are so rare that .. be proud. On the other hand, I've been in the business (and not like web development itself, but business that relies on their website, looks, UX, performance, ..) and doing this properly have always been in the last place. Literally. Of course, it might depend on the size of the enterprise, but so far I've seen only "make this in 3 minutes", which means .. of course people (developers, employees) make that happen - a few keywords in Google, a few sec download, a few copy/paste lines and task finished.

Sorry .. I might have gone a little bit (to say the least) offtopic.

 

You need to be "established" before you get access to the like-button. Basically, you need 3 likes from already established members. You got another one for your last post (by me), so only one left to go

 

Which is the rub of it really, as if you don't do it "properly" you won't have a good UX or good performance. EVER... which is why putting things like semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, and progressive enhancement so that the site gracefully degrades at the rear of the pack is the most back-assward thing you can do in building a website!

... and yet thanks to artsy-fartsy "let's start with a picture of what it might look like" asshattery and "oh what it looks like for me, screw everyone else" attitude MOST sites delivered in less time than a pizza are a giant middle finger to visitors to said sites.

As I've said many, MANY times, I don't care how pretty it is, if the end result is so slow nobody wants to wait for it to load, so inaccessible you're telling large swaths of users to sod off, and so poorly structured users who can put up with both of those failings will wait around for it only to not be even able to find what they landed on your site for... well, then what the hell good is it?!?

Except of course when they aren't even close to finished, but are COMPLETELY unaware of it as again, they don't know enough about websites or the technologies used to build them to even know when they are done, if what they have done is useful to as many people as possible, or was even the fastest way of building it and/or will save them time later when changes need to be made.

Which 99.99% of the time, if they had bothered learning about using HTML properly, using CSS properly, and skipped the stupid bloated framework garbage altogether, they'd actually be building more useful websites IN LESS TIME than the blind copypasta or mind-numbingly idiotic "framework" garbage let them. But again, that might involve actual learning and thinking, instead of "but all the sick buzzwords say to do it this way" -- which to be frank is why HTML/CSS/JS frameworks are to web development what anti-vax or "detox" homeopathy is to medicine, or what the whole "organic" movement is to farming -- pseudoscience nonsense again propagated by the echo chamber effect. If everyone stands around chanting "bootstrap is easier" like second rate cultists waiting for the aliens from behind Haley's comet to take them to Nirvana, it starts being believed as the truth no matter how much it flat out isn't!

... and really dealing with the adherants/promoters of things like less, sass, bootstrap, jquery, react, etc, etc, is like dealing with brainwashed cultists. They are so ridiculously out of touch with reality you sit there waiting for them to start sending flowers to Jodie Foster or to announce their big move to a commune in Guyana.

But that's why I heartliy endorse things like the UK's 2010 EQA laws, which fines important 'essential' government and private institutions for failing to meet accessibility minimums, as well as court recognition in Canada and Australia where if a site is in fact essential for a person with a disability, and they fail to provide even the most basic of guidelines like the WCAG, you can end up facing a civil suit! Banks, Insurance companies, government sites -- all should be held accountable as the world moves away from the dead tree edition.

PARTICULARLY when the entire reason HTML was created was to allow content delivery to all users regardless of what device or personal limitations are present on EITHER end of the communication!

Which is why to anyone who ACTUALLY understands how to use HTML, CSS, or JavaScript properly, the OP's question literally translates as:
"I'm using some bloated garbage because I don't know how to use HTML and CSS properly. What bloated garbage for scripttardery can I safely mix in to turn the entire mess into an even less useful train wreck of how NOT to build a website, making myself work two or three times harder than I have to whilst deluding myself into THINKING that writing two or three times my own code was somehow easier?"

Which is where the real laugh of idiotic crap like bootcrap comes into play -- I'll never understand how writing two to three times the HTML needed is "faster" to create or "easier" to maintain. If that doesn't set off your bullshit alarm, nothing will.

 

Oh, and side note for those of you who PM'd me about it but lacked the cojones to ask in this thread, that snipped from Bootcrap's demo plate above? That 1.1k train wreck of DIV and SPAN for nothing with a broken inaccessible form?

Ther is likely NO legitimate excuse for the markup of that to exceed much more than:

<div id="top"><div class="widthWrapper">
	<h1><a href="/">Project Name</a></h1>
	<input type="checkbox" id="userLoginShowHide">
	<label for="userLoginShowHide"></label>
	<form action="#" method="get" id="userLogin">
		<fieldset>
			<label for="login_email">E-Mail:</label>
			<input type="email" name="email" id="login_email">
			<label for="login_pass">Password:</label>
			<input type="password" name="pass" id="login_pass">
			<button type="submit">Sign In</button>
		</fieldset>
	</form>
<!-- .widthWrapper, #top --></div></div>

Code (markup):

Which is less than HALF the code and would provide MORE than enough hooks to do the exact same bloody thing, just without wasting scripttardery on the responsive show/hide of the menu. YES I can even make the hamburger.

THAT is how stupid bootcrap and EVERYTHING about it is! When they can't even be bothered to use a H1 for what it's for, (or HEADER if they want the 5 retardation) and don't know that placeholder is NOT a substitute for a label, it should be plainly obvious to anyone qualified to build a website that the know-nothing half-tweets who created bootcrap aren't qualified to do but two things in terms of building a website -- Jack and Shit... and Jack left town.

In a "this squid is so raw it's still raping Japanese schoolgirls", "this dish is so ginger it's a Weasley", "This roll is so horrible even Nicholas Cage would turn it down", "This pork is so raw it's still singing Hakuna Matata", "My gran could cook better, and she's been in the ground for thirty years" kind of way...

Which is why the people who sing bootstrap's praises are so full of shit, their eyes are brown.

 

It really depends on the developers if they want to use a client-side framework and a JavaScript library or not, some wanted to focus on server-side development and use other JS library than jQuery to see what HTML manipulation they can do or to increase their production, do more, write less.

The question in this thread is still which JavaScript library (excluding jQuery) have the highest compatibility rate for Bootstrap and why?