1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Graphical Editor For Bootstrap

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by engine44, Aug 19, 2017.

  1. #1
    I'm beginning to learn Bootstrap 4.0. There are many graphical editors available for Bootstrap such as Pinegrow. Do I need one? Do most Bootstrap users use a graphical editor? Thanks.
    SEMrush
     
    engine44, Aug 19, 2017 IP
    SEMrush
  2. kennedygitahi

    kennedygitahi Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    #2
    I am a PHP developer working with wordpress and bootstrap for close to seven years. I don't believe in graphical editors because for the most part, they do not understand clean code. The follow the rules and will more often than not, write bloated code. I prefer to write my own code for end products but will use a graphical editor when the client needs a prototype in a short period of time. After approval, I get down to writing my own code, though I have to admit bootstrap plays big role in my HTML/CSS/JS but not my PHP as concerns final delivery

    EDIT : oh, it is not likely to find a graphical editor using bootstrap 4 so again, better to write your own code for the final delivery
     
    kennedygitahi, Aug 19, 2017 IP
  3. engine44

    engine44 Peon

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    3
    #3
    Thanks for your reply. Your main concern seems to be clean code which I agree with. I recently read a review of graphical editors. Among other things, the author focused on clean code. He downrated most editors for that reason. He did mention a few that produced clean code in his opinion. Pinegrow was one.
     
    engine44, Aug 20, 2017 IP
  4. Tennouji

    Tennouji Active Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    #4
    I prefer using a local dev server (e.g. XAMPP on Windows), a Sass/Javascript compiler app like Koala, and Notepad++. I never had any problem so far and felt it's adequate for doing stuffs like simple designs and theme development.
     
    Tennouji, Aug 20, 2017 IP
  5. kennedygitahi

    kennedygitahi Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    #5
    Maybe pinegrow has become more mature since I tried it. I will have a look. Does pinegrow write bootstrap 4 code?
     
    kennedygitahi, Aug 20, 2017 IP
  6. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,050
    Likes Received:
    1,674
    Best Answers:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #6
    So sorry to hear about the self-inflicted damage to your brain cells.

    If you're even THINKING about some dumbass halfwit WYSIWYG editor, you don't know enough about HTML or CSS to be building websites. This probably explains why you were so easily duped into the train wreck of developer incompetence that is bootcrap.

    Bootcrap relies on presentational use of classes to even function, typically with excess wrapping DIV/SPAN for nothing, layout concepts not viable for web deployment, etc, etc... I could go on at GREAT lengths about the mental failings required to even CONSIDER such "frameworks" useful.

    To then mix that nonsense with the even BIGGER train wreck of how NOT to build a website that is a WYSIWYG / graphical drag and drop editor? That's just pure DERP!

    CONTENT my good fellow, CONTENT!

    <broken record>
    [​IMG]

    CONTENT dictates markup, CONTENT + markup + device capabilities dictates layout. Everything else should be a paintover after the fact!

    1) Start with your CONTENT or a reasonable facsimile of future content -- ALL OF IT -- and arrange it in a flat text editor as if HTML doesn't even exist.

    2) Markup that content with the semantic HTML tags (basically everything other than DIV and SPAN) to say what things ARE, NOT what you want them to look like.

    3) Use CSS to apply the appearance you want, adding DIV, SPAN, ID's and classes where and ONLY as needed to do so. Start with your desktop / legacy browser layout (what we cannot target with media queries) and work your way down to create the breakpoints as needed by the CONTENT, not some arbitrary predetermined pixel measurement or grid asshattery.

    </broken>

    Anything else will result in a bloated disaster on the usability and accessibility front!

    As I'm always saying the ONLY thing you can learn from bootcrap is how NOT to build a website. By its very nature it defeats the entire reason HTML and CSS are even separate in the first place, at which point one might as well go back to 1997 using tables for layout, CENTER and FONT tags, and basically pretend the past two decades never happened and CSS doesn't even exist! THATS' HOW MALFING STUPID bootcrap is!!!

    ANYONE telling you that it's magically somehow "easier" or "more productive" is flapping their arse cheeks and isn't qualified to open their damned mouth on the SUBJECT! You'd be better off sucking the business end of a high velocity chemical expansion lead pellet projector than you are using bootcrap to build a website!
     
    deathshadow, Aug 23, 2017 IP
  7. Tennouji

    Tennouji Active Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    #7
    You do realize that bootstrap and similar frameworks were made because not everyone online is a professional web developer, right? Off the high horse, some people are not professional on the field but wish to have a ready solution on their needs and learn from there.
     
    Tennouji, Aug 23, 2017 IP
  8. engine44

    engine44 Peon

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    3
    #8
    No, not yet.
     
    engine44, Aug 23, 2017 IP
  9. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,050
    Likes Received:
    1,674
    Best Answers:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #9
    That argument would make sense IF bootstrap was ACTUALLY easier, or if graphical editors made websites USEFUL to visitors. NEITHER is true.

    You can only "wah wah, I don't wanna learn" for so long before it whips around and kicks you in the groin.

    CSS once you learn to apply selectors and a few common techniques is actually pretty damned simple, making HTML even simpler. People MAKE it harder with idiotic nonsense like presentational markup, presentational use of classes, and coming at design and development from the completely back-assward approach of "appearance first".

    Which is why people making websites are DUMBER for idiotic halfwit BULLSHIT like Dreamweaver, Frontpage, pinegrow, bootcrap, jquery, yui, blueprint, grids, "PSD as Design" or any of the rest of the half-baked nonsense the mouth-breathing twaddles cream their panties over!

    The only thing you can learn from those tools is how NOT to build a website. PERIOD. Anyone telling you otherwise is either a fool, a liar, or selling something.

    Which is why TIME and time again you get people going to development forums with a problem hoping for some magical silver bullet, when the TRAIN WRECK OF INEPTITUDE their choice of tools has saddled them with means the ENTIRE mess has to be thrown out and started over from scratch! That's ALL these tools do to people is dupe rubes and nubes into THINKING they can build a website.
     
    deathshadow, Aug 23, 2017 IP
  10. Tennouji

    Tennouji Active Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    #10
    That argument would make sense if bootstrap was actually not easier. Bootstrap is a quick solution to pull out design concepts from when you need to show a client a rough draft as well. You can't just assume that people don't want to learn. Some actually learned from experience and online courses combined. Learning things is not exclusively a single way like "your arrogant and closed-minded idea" is.

    You most likely are seeing such assistant tools and frameworks like bootstrap the wrong way.

    Frameworks like bootstrap were made for flexibility an easy dirty solution for those who need so, so people use them as such when needed. I also agree about what you're saying about developing the design markup for the very content you have, and that is good. I also do the same since I have ample experience, knowledge and time to do so on projects that I focus on.

    But people don't always have the skills and time already and still need to get something done as they need within their own hands, thus the assistant apps/frameworks.

    People will use such framework/apps because they are free to, and your opinion does not restrict them from doing so. Some people don't want to learn, and some do. But assuming that everyone who uses "this or that" is "this kind of people" is dumber than a sack of peanuts. You most likely are just seeing things for the wrong purpose, thus deciding that they're bad.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2017
    Tennouji, Aug 24, 2017 IP
  11. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes Received:
    724
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #11
    You seem to assume that using a broken tool to get something done, negates the fact that it is, actually, broken. Which I can't for the life of me fathom.

    What you're saying is that using, for instance, Bootstrap makes something easier. I'm guessing what it does make easier is very complex layouts - which is probably on the level of "shouldn't be put online" in the first place. As @deathshadow has pointed out several times now, Bootstrap does nothing right when it comes to CSS / HTML. So how it can be a "simple tool" for people without knowledge is not something I manage to grasp. If you spend a day (yes, a day, like... 4-5 hours) reading up on HTML specs, and then maybe another 4-5 hours reading up on CSS, you should be able to get most basic sites done without abusing either. More complex layouts and usage might take a little bit longer, of course, since there are quite a few pitfalls when you start using multiple columns, modern shit like parallax scrolling and such, but none of those are _needed_ in any way to get a functioning site, and if you do "need" those gimmicks, you should definitely learn a bit before doing it.
     
    PoPSiCLe, Aug 24, 2017 IP
  12. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,050
    Likes Received:
    1,674
    Best Answers:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #12
    How in the blue blazes is it easier?

    1) it makes people write two to three times the HTML

    2) it makes people write as much if not MORE CSS than they'd have without it if they are doing anything more than slopping out another cookie cutter Every ***ing bootstrap site ever

    3) It prevents people from learning to use HTML and CSS correctly, BUT

    4) You STILL have to at least learn HTML to learn how to apply it, and some CSS to do anything more than again just cookie-cutter rubber stamp out the same useless garbage.

    5) Even then, it's something ELSE to learn heaped on top, so learning curve == learning curve, so at BEST it's a step sideways, in the wrong direction!

    6) Due to the ENDLESS horde of presentational classes makes pages written with it many times HARDER to maintain and update, since to change style -- any style -- your stuck either changing the markup (defeating one of the reasons HTML even exists), or fighting a specificity battle from HELL!

    7) by using classes in a presentational manner it undoes all the progress made since 1997 -- much like the mouth-breathing idiocy that is OOCSS. (Which bootcrap is clearly based on). If you're going to slop classes, div for nothing, and style only elements into page like this:

    
    <body id="page-top">
    
        <nav id="mainNav" class="navbar navbar-default navbar-fixed-top">
            <div class="container-fluid">
                <!-- Brand and toggle get grouped for better mobile display -->
                <div class="navbar-header">
                    <button type="button" class="navbar-toggle collapsed" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#main-menu">
                        <span class="sr-only">Navigation</span>
                        <span class="icon-bar"></span>
                        <span class="icon-bar"></span>
                        <span class="icon-bar"></span>
                    </button>
                    <a class="navbar-brand page-scroll" href="#page-top">Site Name Here</a>
                </div>
    
                <!-- Collect the nav links, forms, and other content for toggling -->
                <div class="collapse navbar-collapse" id="main-menu">
                    <ul class="nav navbar-nav navbar-right">
    
    Code (markup):
    Then you might as well go back to writing HTML 3.2 and pretend CSS and everything added since 1997 doesn't even EXIST!

    It is the antithesis of sane and rational design, is MORE work, uses more code, and makes the developer WRITE MORE CODE OF THEIR OWN! PARTICULARLY when it relies on bloated scripttardery for things we don't even need JavaScript to DO for anywhere from five to ten YEARS!

    In case you have no idea what's wrong with the code above, there's usually little excuse for the above to be written as anything more than:

    
    <body>
    
    <div id="top">
    	<h1><a href="#top">Site Name Here</a></h1>
    	<input type="checkbox" id="mainMenuShowHide">
    	<label for="mainMenuShowHide"></label>
    	<ul id="mainMenu">
    
    Code (markup):
    THAT is the level of ineptitude we're talking about with bootcrap -- so again, HOW the **** is writing more code 'easier'? In this case, MORE THAN FIVE TIMES THE CODE!

    Except it isn't quick to do a Joe-damned thing. If you have CONTENT or a reasonable facsimile of content, in terms of layout it should not take you more than 15 to 20 minutes to belt out semantic markup and a matching screen media stylesheet. IF that's not 'fast enough' then you don't know enough HTML or CSS to know if Bootcrap saved you time!

    Seems to be only one of a few possible explanations how anyone could be so easily DUPED into thinking it is somehow easier or better -- as if they dont' WANT to learn HTML, which they STILL have to learn to use it so...

    That or people just don't get the POINT of HTML and CSS, why they are separate, and why tags like FONT and CENTER went the way of the dodo, since again the difference between idiocy like this:

    
    <div class="text-center">
    
    Code (markup):
    and outdated trash like using the <center> tag amounts to just two things, Jack and shit; and Jack left town!

    That's not "arrogant" and "closed minded", that's the TRUTH! Hence why mouth-breathing dumbass ignorant GARBAGE like this:

        <section id="contact">
            <div class="container">
                <div class="row">
                    <div class="col-lg-8 col-lg-offset-2 text-center">
    
    Code (markup):
    Is more work, more code, defeats the ENTIRE reason HTML and CSS are separate, and amounts to nothing more than utter and complete developer ineptitude!

    I don't see any right way, they are more work, prevent learning the right things, result in websites that flip the bird at users from an accessibility standpoint, and can only continue to be chosen by nubes, rubes, and people who should know better out of echo-chamber or again, NEVER having learned to use HTML and CSS correctly, not learning how to leverage semantics instead of throwing endless classes at everything, and failing to learn the most BASIC of concepts like separation of presentation from content and progressive enhancement!

    The "echo chamber" aspect of it being as 'out there' in most cases as other halfwit garbage like religious and political extremism... or how snake oil peddlers prey upon the feeble minded Jade egg stuffing steamed clams who rant and rave about teh evilz uf teh vaccines and GMO's. FAKE NEWS!!! PAID SHILLS!!! (seriously, where do I apply to become a paid shill? Sounds like a great job!)

    The comparison to religion being very apt, the whole "framework culture" has become ridiculously cult-like and delusional.

    Dirty being the operative word, flexible being the opposite of what it does, the words 'easy' and 'needed' having zero damned business in the same SENTENCE given the topic. It is the PINNACLE of developer ignorance and anyone defending it is talking out their ARSE! That and most likely if they are 'experienced' in the industry then they have a nasty case of never having extracted their cranium from 1997's rectum! You LITERALLY might as well go back to writing HTML 3.2 and pretend CSS doesn't exist!

    By making more work in the long run or even the immediate, by needing to write more code than you'd have WITHOUT the framework! By flipping the bird at usability and accessibility norms. By flipping the bird at users with limited resources through the massive code bloat and slowed loading times.

    In that way, it's the credit mentality! Pay more later for something you can't afford now. Yup, that sounds like a BRILLIANT plan for success; NOT!

    Bootstrap and frameworks like it have ZERO redeeming virtues. At BEST they are a wellspring of ignorance and broken methodologies. At WORSE they are nube predating scam-bait propagated through glittering generalities, card stacking, plain folks, transfer, testimonial, and bandwagon.

    Which is why I throw name-calling into the mix; to complete the full set of seven propaganda techniques!

    I've NEVER seen ANYTHING done with it that wasn't more code than needed, required more code on the part of the developer than would be written without it, didn't make the code more complex, specificity a nightmare, or that wasn't harder to maintain, sustain, or even make the simplest of changes to. ALL it does is make people work harder, but since the camel mannered tunic wearing mollycoddles who parrot the "it's easier" bull it very quickly becomes Goebbels "big lie".

    A flavor of bullshit my grandmother taught me to recognize from a very young age.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2017
    deathshadow, Aug 25, 2017 IP
    malky66 and PoPSiCLe like this.
  13. Tennouji

    Tennouji Active Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    #13
    I'll point out something that bootstrap can make easier for others: Fully functional layouts just by adding classes on elements.

    Your opinion is detached from the reality that many people are using bootstrap. Again, you can't expect everyone to be rocket scientists when it comes to design. Bootstrap is not the best way, that's true. But if bootstrap framework is crap, no one should have been using it, and people should have stopped using it already.

    Don't push your "opinion" that doesn't align with reality that the bootstrap framework works for many. Stop assuming everyone works the same way you do, or the same way you learned and have been taught. When something works decent, people will keep using and developing it, may it be Joomla, Bootstrap Framework, or your life.
     
    Tennouji, Aug 30, 2017 IP
  14. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,050
    Likes Received:
    1,674
    Best Answers:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #14
    Aka the OPPOSITE of why HTML and CSS are even separate in the first place, the OPPOSITE of using HTML correctly, a failure to maintain separation of concerns, resulting in bloated non-semantic inaccessible TRAIN WRECK laundry-lists of how NOT to build a website!

    It also hinges on your definition of "easier" since I'll still never grasp how writing two to four times the HTML and STILL needing to write the same amount of CSS on top of it to make it 'unique' as you'd write for the whole damned layout without it is somehow magically "easier". It's a bullshit claim made by people who clearly don't know enough about HTML or CSS to even be flapping their gums about if Bootcrap is "easier" or not.

    It's DELUSIONAL BULLSHIT akin to what one could expect from creationists, flat-Earthers, anti-vaxxers, or jade egg steamed clam stuffers! One neuron short of a synapse, one doctype short of being HTML, one Froot Loop short of breakfast, all foam and no beer. Type of thing only a gross ignoramus would fall for. (aka 144 times worse than a regular ignoramus)

    It only makes you work harder, not smarter. It's more work, more to learn, produces more code, and defeats EVERY aspect of accessibility and graceful degradation. How in the HELL is that "easier"?!? It's only "easier: because people say it is over and over again until -- again -- it becomes NOTHING MORE than Goebbels "big lie".

    ā€œIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.ā€ -- Joseph Goebbels.

    [​IMG]

    I'm with that guy. Not to go all Godwin's law with this.
     
    deathshadow, Aug 30, 2017 IP
  15. Tennouji

    Tennouji Active Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    #15
    You still don't represent everyone who uses bootstrap when it works for them, so your self-righteous elitist bigotry is nothing for those. Don't compare preferences to morality to justify your hate for other preferences. You look PATHETIC like that, trying to swing everyone to your bandwagon just because you're preferences are different.

    And stop labeling preferences as "lies" just because it doesn't align with your own. You really start to sound like HITLER together with that ALL CAPS like you want to repeat your opinion until everyone is BRAINWASHED.

    If it doesn't work for your preferences, it doesn't mean that it won't work for others, so you should learn to accept differences. Not everyone has a skill set like web devs/designers, and not everyone will think like you, so stop acting like a HITLER and stop taking this personally. I doubt you'll accept other opinions and preferences though, looking how annoyed you are when seeing other people opposing your opinion.

    tl;dr - Stop being a SORE LOSER, accept the fact that you don't represent the opinion of others.

    I'll stop replying on you, since I still respect the fact that you have a preference, and it's technically correct since I also do things the same way. I just don't want to stoop at your level any more than this. Suit yourself and talk all you want, attack me if you feel so, show it to everyone if that's how you amount as a human being. The fact that you'll reply offended and crying here will be the proof, if you will ever be. Too bad I won't be able to read it anymore.

    Farewell, self-acclaimed representative of 100% of people in the internet. You are correct but you just have to be a toxic person. No wonder why you are where you are now. Good luck and LIVE LONG, really. You need that from me.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
    Tennouji, Aug 31, 2017 IP
  16. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,050
    Likes Received:
    1,674
    Best Answers:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #16
    Except it doesn't work for them, it only DELUDES them into THINKING it works. Then they come here or some other forum with a small problem that ends up needing a total rewrite of the entire site. They come to forums or professionals asking why their site is slow, buggy, unreliable. They end up in COURT for failing to meet accessibility minimums (a reality in multiple countries) thanks to their ignorance which is where someone like myself gets hired to fix the mess.

    I'm not comparing it to morality, nor is it a "preference". I'm talking logic fallacies and the cult-like cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias it creates. It is an illogical choice filled with multiple failings, making multiple claims NONE of which are true, that are provable with FACTS such as file sizes, code to content ratios, specifications, guidelines, and the actual WORK involved in using it vs. not using it!

    What's PATHETIC is that the people defending it the BEST they can come up with as a counterpoint is "wah wah, is not" like some petulant five year old. They cannot say HOW it is easier, they just say "oh it just is". Whereas I can point at dozens of reasons why it is NOT easier, or better, or faster, or simpler, or even any damned good!

    Defending bootstrap makes about as much sense as defending Amway or Mary Kay. It is THAT big of a sham. That's not a "preference" that's FACT.

    That you keep calling it a "preference" or claim that I'm a "self proclaimed representative of everybody" (Or at least I assume you meant proclaimed) is nothing more than you sticking your head in the sand and refusing to accept those FACTS. Again it's more like dealing with cultists than sane and rational adults.

    But of course, I'm the asshole by trying to teach others a cleaner simpler way of doing things and promoting cleaner simpler practices, instead of letting nubes and rubes get suckered in by two-bit hucksterism, snake oil peddlers, and the classic propaganda techniques used repeatedly throughout time to dupe people into making bad choices.

    ... and that's not being a sore loser, it's being pissed off about other people's choices making what I do harder -- both as a user AND as a visitor to websites.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
    deathshadow, Aug 31, 2017 IP