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.

How the blazes is bootstrap "easier"?

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by deathshadow, Jul 3, 2019.

  1. #1
    Every time the topic of the train wreck laundry list of how to NOT build a website that is bootcrap comes up in a conversation, the "defense" of its use always comes down to a handful of claims.

    1) it's "easier"

    2) it makes you "more productive"

    3) It's faster to learn

    4) It lets you build pages faster.

    It has been -- as many of you know -- my experience that NONE of these things are true. In most cases they are immediately provable as false for the simple fact it makes you write two to ten times the HTML needed to do the job!. This stems from the use of presentational classes to undo twenty years of progress, which is why the way it makes you idiotically sleaze endless DIV around everything whether it needs it or not mated to endless pointless classes reeks of recreating the same mindset of site-building that were tables for layout, and tags like font/center.

    Then you have the false claims of "don't reinvent the wheel" -- WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT! It reinvents the wheel by making classes for nearly everything you can do with CSS! This is not just replicating existing functionality, but adding a second thing to learn ON TOP of the CSS you should already know.

    HOW IS THAT LESS WORK?, much less not 'reinventing the wheel'?

    Don't even get me started about the cross-browser compatibility claims that hold water like a steel sieve given they've switched to using flex-box which has no such issues.

    I have the same question of all these other frameworks. If you know even the most BASIC of rules of using HTML, the approach that front-end frameworks bring to the table should be setting off every warning bell in your head!

    HOW!?! -- I ask this time and time again. I don't want to hear "oh you don't work with those types of sites", 'cause that's 100% BS. I don't want to hear "oh it just is" becuase that's the type of moronic answer I'd expect from a collar wearing fool at the pulpit.

    WHY? HOW?!? EXPLAIN IT!!!

    I have NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer to this question apart from anecdotes, unfounded claims, and outright lies... and when it is asked, as I have REPEATEDLY most of the time nobody even TRIES to form a rational answer or even acknowledge the question was huffing asked!

    Because needing to write two to ten times the markup, to avoid writing the same amount of CSS -- or even less CSS -- than you have in extra markup, whilst adding something extra to learn on top, with a result that is broken for me as a end user and flips the bird at good practices, makes no sense. That it teaches outdated site-building THINKING 1990's style certainly makes it something I would NEVER point a beginner at. That it's harder to work with, harder to maintain, takes longer to develop, and ends up a convoluted indecipherable WRECK of cryptic classes and pointless layered overrides? It guts EVERY defense of it.

    It does NOT make it easier for beginners since it's more to learn, and makes them learn it WRONG since even the stock examples have gibberish broken inaccessible markup.

    It does NOT make it faster for experienced developers to create since you're writing as much if not more code, whilst making a mess of overlapping properties. (as evidenced by all the re-re !important)

    It does NOT make it easier for new developers to come into managing it because again it's more code, more convoluted and cryptic code, and an endless mess of overlapping properties that you have to spend half your life in the document inspector to even make sense out of.

    NOT ONE HUFFING CLAIM I'VE EVER HEARD about it is true. That all the defenses of this asshattery are so riddled with BLATANT OUTRIGHT LIES is what truly baffles me about those who blindly claim it's somehow a good thing. Or a useful thing. Or even anything anyone should ever use.

    So here's a thread for it. EXPLAIN IT TO ME Not with anecdotes, not with more glittering generalities over how great it is. GIVE ME FACTS! How are ANY of these dumbass front-end frameworks "better" than just writing HTML and CSS properly from the start, with semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, and progressive enhancement? I don't get it. EVERYTHING people claim about it comes across as 100% farm fresh prairie pies.

    PROVE ME WRONG!
    SEMrush
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
    deathshadow, Jul 3, 2019 IP
    johneva, mmerlinn and kk5st like this.
    SEMrush
  2. pxgfx

    pxgfx Active Member

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    50
    #2
    Hmmmm that's simple ... it's bcoz all you really have to do is write the markup the bootcrap way, slap predefined classes like it's 1997 and it becomes automagically responsive (which is so 2020) == less work for me ... which of course is called laziness and the result is == pure inaccessible rubbish, but who cares "I still get paid, sites I build use HTML5" *Tim* "The best HTML ever made!" ... and incorporate "bleeding edge technologies", which of course means they could have high risk of being unreliable and lead adopters to incur greater expense in order to make use of them, BUT hooray to me cos I don't know that!! My sites look better than youzah!! I do it the css-tricks way!! ... and the top, best, [add a few more crApple-level adjectives here] YouTubers I follow do the same!! ... so they must be right, right?!! Plus I listen to 12 different podcasts about web dev (they're so cool and their stories?? so so inspirational I want to become like them!! == better than you!!) ------- all that instead of learning to be efficient in using HTML, CSS and JS properly ... #convenience #livingTheLife #pro #workSmart #reality #sadLife
     
    pxgfx, Jul 3, 2019 IP
    deathshadow likes this.
  3. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Best Answers:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #3
    ... and today's winner of the sarcasm award is?
     
    deathshadow, Jul 3, 2019 IP
  4. Gary-SC

    Gary-SC Greenhorn

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    13
    #4
    All of those things would be true if they put them this way:

    1) it's "easier" ....to make money selling to people who don't know and can't hold me accountable than learning and doing the right things.

    2) it makes you FEEL "more productive" by merely writing and doing more.

    3) It's faster to rob than to work if I want quick money.

    4) It lets you pile up manure faster.

    Seriously, I've been noticing more and more of that whole "nobody cares, gotta get stuff out, deal with it" rhetoric not just in some of the responses I get in this forum but also everywhere I go on the Internet for learning stuff. That kind of mindset could put one in jail in other industries. I mean, can you imagine doing that in building a house, or in the restaurant industry? I suspect it has to do with the nature of the digital stuff being "invisible" and not physical objects. It makes me feel somewhat disappointed as a noob that I might be setting my foot into an industry where willful disregard of craftsmanship, valuing of quality and work ethics for the sake of making the most bucks are the norm. There seem to be a lot of slapping things together for the maximum profit...
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
    Gary-SC, Jul 3, 2019 IP
  5. NetStar

    NetStar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    Likes Received:
    449
    Best Answers:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #5
    Reasons why a company believes bootstrap is easier:
    • Provides a consistent design pattern that all designers can use on a team.
    • Easy to pickup as it's well documented. All you need to do is go straight to the docs and there's copy and paste examples.
    • Speeds up development because you no longer are concerned about building components, stylizing elements, and fiddling with spacing/padding/margins etc.
    • Time saved by all of the above means your product can get in front of the customer faster.
    Reasons why an individual believes bootstrap is easier:
    • They do not need to learn CSS in depth. They can immediately create a page by using tags and snippets provided by the bootstrap docs.
    • If they lack creativity all of the materials and components are already designed.
    • There are thousands of templates that can provide a base for their layout. If you are creative challenged this will save you time by avoiding the non-stop experimentation of different colors and layouts.
    Those are the reasons why a company or individual will think Bootstrap is easier. And honestly those are all valid points. Before you go off on another turd tangent here are some reasons not to use bootstrap:
    • Bootstrap is heavy forcing the Browser to load and process several hundreds of kilobytes of code.
    • The DOM is polluted with unused and irrelevant code that your web site doesn't use or need.
    • HTML code becomes non-semantic and often messy and hard to read.
    • The finished web site can look very similar to other bootstrap web sites unless you customize.
    • Customizing bootstrap generally consists of overrides which makes the code even messier.
    And just to end on a happy note. Here's what your customers think of bootstrap:
    • Nothing. They don't care what you use to design your web site.
    I can't wait for @deathshadow to read this and p^ss himself. I'm sure as socially awkward as he is he will not recognize that I am listing the reasons for why someone may find it easier and will go out of his way to rebuttal everything I just stated with a bunch of bloated non-sense. Such a stressed little css nerd.
     
    NetStar, Jul 4, 2019 IP
  6. kk5st

    kk5st Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    361
    Best Answers:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #6
    There is a problem in that for all its 'advantages', the original premise is faulty. As for the so-called libraries, any developer worth his salt will be consistently building his own set of html, structural building blocks along with base css examples. They will be bloat free since they don't need to be a one-size-fits-all. The same goes for writing his own js scripts.

    Debugging is a serious issue for a non-trivial page or site. Unless the pages are dead simple fixing something that doesn't work as you want it can cost more than the page. I made a decent living fixing sites. Why? Because their own devs outran their own skills. I'm talking magazine publishers, int'l telecom companies, resort chains, etc. all got caught up in thinking WP and Bootstrap, et al would be their savior. Unless you're doing the equivalent of flipping web burgers, you will need to grok html+css+js in fullness.

    Maintaining a complex site easily costs 1.5 times the initial cost per annum. If it's just plugging in new material into a template, that's one thing. But if you need to adjust layouts to fit the new material, you'd better know what you're doing. No matter how you try to avoid it, lots of pages means lots of bugs whether you like it or not.

    Since you need to know all that sh't anyway, and since you're building your own libraries anyway, and since your own code is tight and human readable anyway, where's the added value in an extra level of abstraction, unreadable bloat and generic scripting? Or, keep flipping web burgers.

    gary
     
    kk5st, Jul 4, 2019 IP
  7. EustaceEustace

    EustaceEustace Peon

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    #7
    I recommend that you do not learn boostrapa at once - it is easier and faster to learn but it is better to learn the basics and everything is based rather than having problems with changing the framework. I know that many people did that and later they returned to the basics or were being compressed because they did not know simple things in pure language.
     
    EustaceEustace, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  8. Gary-SC

    Gary-SC Greenhorn

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    13
    #8
    How is this "consistent design pattern" that someone else made for the framework always suitable for all clients hiring you professionally? Don't you need to spend time customizing it to their needs? On the other hand, why would I hire a pro to do this if the native Bootstrap components are good enough for me and I could just copy and paste my way out of it or use a pre-designed free template straight out of startbootstrap.com?

    Why would I want to hire a pro to do that?

    If that were the case, why even bother copying and pasting from Bootstrap documentation? Why not just download a free, pre-designed template from startbootstrap.com, change its dummy contents, and be done with it? And, why would I even want to pay to hire a pro in that case?

    I guess I can "save time" by not doing most work, to begin with. But then again, how is it "better," and why should I even pay for such "job" if all I will get is some pre-fabricated template page?

    In that case, why not just download a pre-designed template and be done with it instead of using Bootstrap and manually copying and pasting stuff?

    So, there is "a base for their layout," which sounds to me like it's something to be customized and tweaked. Doesn't that still involve a lot of experimentations of different colors and layouts? If not, how is that better than simply downloading a free pre-made template and be done with it? Or even better, sign up for a WordPress.com account and get the site up and running in less than ten minutes.

    How?

    Native way: (learn native CSS) + (write code) = doing two things
    Bootstrap way: (learn Bootstrap) + (learn native CSS to customize how to override some Bootstrap code) + (write code) = doing three things
    Free template way: (download a Bootstrap free template) + (learn native CSS to tweak) + (tweak the template) = doing three things

    Then why not just skip the entire process? I could always sign up for a free WordPress.com account, pick up a template and be done with it in less than ten minutes without doing all the nonsense of hiring a pro to do the same thing. I could even do that, claim I built the whole thing myself, and charge $2,000 for it. Maybe that's what you call a good business sense?
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
    Gary-SC, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  9. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Best Answers:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #9
    ... and that's EXACTLY what makes the people who defend all these bad practices feel like dirtbag sleazy DISHONEST scam artists. It's bad enough for beginners to make the mistake of BELIEVING lies, without professionals peddling them. MOST of the people USING bootstrap, wordpress, etc, etc, and indeed most everyone CREATING these systems CLEARLY don't know enough HTML or CSS to build websites. As such using them when you're allegedly a professional is just as big a LIE as the claims of it being somehow magically easier or simpler.

    It's immoral, unethical, and nonsensical.
     
    deathshadow, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  10. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Best Answers:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #10
    Yes, it's called holding a conversation, something forums were designed to do. Apologies if being intelligent and asking questions, finding answers like yours unsatisfactory is so "intimidating" you have to resort to insulting me for being smart. Such a lovely language -- "American English" -- where we have more words and colloquialisms for insulting people for being smart than we do for being stupid. Also says a lot about your opinion you felt the need to go there... or am I alone in finding words like "nerd" a compliment?

    Though nice attempt at bear baiting, given it's well known my distaste for twitter generation mouth-breathers who lose their shit screams "aaah, wall of text" at anything over 144 characters, and when given twice that limit end up akin to the beggar on horseback; not knowing what to do with the prosperity. Oh but for the days when people used to bitch that 32k was too small a limit for forum posts. As I've said many times, the literacy rate may be at an all time high, but the quality has suffered. HEAVEN FORBID intelligent people use actual words on the Internet, full sentences, and complete thoughts. Do you want an idiocracy? Because this is how you get an Idiocracy!

    Your "list" is indeed unsatisfactory, as it's filled more with anecdotes than fact. CLAIMS, but not explanations of the ACTUAL question: HOW?!? HOW is it ACTUALLY any of those things you claim?

    In general the way you worded your response may in fact explain my complete lack of grasping it. You say it two or three times, they "believe" these things to be true. You do not provide any proof of it being true, but you talk about belief. You couched it in the language of faith.

    I have no use for belief/faith/religion, as I find the entire concept utterly barmy. I do not grasp how people so readily swallow such blatant lies and fairy tales, clinging to outdated outmoded superstitions... much less why most people are so ridiculously suceptable to the propaganda, peer pressure, and indoctrination by which it spreads.

    As such, your "answer" comes down to being just another version of the "Wizard's First Rule". These people are believing a lie because they either want it to be true, or are afraid it might be true; and the dirtbags who peddle this BS are exploiting the simple fact that people are dumb.

    Any claims of "consistency" are what structural rules and semantics are supposed to create, and the notion of "components" being part of what I find SLOWS DOWN development as you're stuck trying to integrate snippets together without having the essential knowledge of how they work, much less how to put them together. This is just part of why I find the claims of "saved time" to be utter and complete bunko. The whole concept of "components" feels broken to me since the content should be dictating the semantics, and most of this component crap involves shoe-horning content into pre-built markup -- something that is far, FAR harder to do.

    BUT, one of your claims does hold some weight, that of documentation. I could see if some nube was suckered in by trask like W3Fools, then tried to go to the actual specifications? Yeah, I could see them running into bootcrap's waiting arms. HTML and CSS do have a SERIOUS documentation problem. MDN seems to be addressing this as their references and tutorials continue to mature, and indeed the examples in their pages are a welcome change since they at least come CLOSE to being proper.

    Yet if we were just talking the "older" web rot (like the sleazy W3Schools) or the painfully obtuse legalese of the W3C / WhatWG specifications? Then yeah, I'll give you points for Bootcrap being better documented. The problem being what it documents is wrong, ACTUALLY harder, ACTUALLY slower... but sure, it's nicely documented.

    Again, that's actually one of my biggest problems with HTML, the ALLEGED specification being utter and complete useless garbage when it's SUPPOSED to be the rules of how to write a website. It's written for browser makers, not site makers, and that's a MAJOR problem that can scare away beginners.

    But your use of the language of belief really underscores the problem and doesn't address my question of "HOW is it ACTUALLY simpler/easier". You did however answer why people might delude themselves into thinking it is so. NOT the answer I was looking for as it's not really an answer to the question; but a lot closer than anything I've gotten from anyone before.

    In no way did you prove that any of the claims about bootstrap or its kin/kine are in fact true, you just explained the issues that might make people buy into the LIE that it is so.
     
    deathshadow, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  11. Gary-SC

    Gary-SC Greenhorn

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    13
    #11
    All the points/counter-points aside, the wanton disregard for the professionalism I see in the "nobody cares, just copy and paste and output as fast as you can" comment staggers me. Appalling.
     
    Gary-SC, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  12. Gary-SC

    Gary-SC Greenhorn

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    13
    #12
    And I also find it practically impossible to try integrating a component someone else made without duplicating a bunch of declarations. I learned to try my best to DRY my CSS. If I am to integrate, say, a button design someone else wrote, I still find it far easier to use it merely as a visual reference and write the code myself from scratch to implement it properly in the context of my HTML/CSS code, than trying to tweak the original code to make it retrofit.

    I looked at how a Bootstrap template implemented many things in the browser dev tools once before. It did all kinds of things in such a convoluted manner (ex. one div to do one thing, then another div to do another thing, when one element inside those two divs can do both without them) that I utterly failed to see how it was somehow "easier" and "faster" to handle it than writing the right thing once and be done with it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
    Gary-SC, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  13. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Best Answers:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #13
    .. and possibly criminal depending on the site-owner and industry.

    I think a lot of it stems from the fact any clown can pick it up, put on a suit, shove their nose up everyone's brown, and call themselves a "professional". They put on the act, whilst ripping off client after client with the fake smiles, platitudes, and politicking. These clowns wouldn't know actual professionalism -- ethical behavior, common decency, accountability -- if Tim Erblich smacked them across the face with the engineers code.

    But it's the same attitude we're seeing across all aspects of business right now, the pinnacle of which being the modern take on corporate raiding. So called "investors" disappeared, and now we have "shareholders". They aren't interested in investing in a company at a reasonable rate of return, they want to minimize "risk" by maximizing profit over as short a period of time as possible, and who gives a flying purple fish if in doing so they tank the company's future! Look at Sears, K-Mart, and Toy's 'R Us. They maximized the payout for the least investment rather than re-investing in the company, its employees, and its customers. That way the shareholders were able to make a fortune whilst driving the company into the ground.

    That's the "modern business method" in a nutshell, and we see it everywhere, even down to the lowliest consumer. As Henry Kissinger once said, "America has gone from a nation of savers to a nation of debtors". It's the "credit mentality" of "pay more later for something you can't afford now" that ends up being a scam designed to keep people in debt to the grave. This is why pretty much everyone right now behaves like late 19th century "robber barons".

    Business owners no longer actually care about the future of their own companies! You can see it in most every choice they make. It is no wonder then that the "just get it done any old way" scam artists are so easily able to prey on those who can't see the bigger picture. They worry about today so much, they act like there's no tomorrow. And if that means sociopathic if not outright psychotic treatment of others, pitching morality out the window? All the better.

    That's basically the attitude @NetStar is spouting and defending. Views utterly lacking in morality, decency, common sense, or anything remotely resembling a professional ethic. Again why I compare it to religion...
     
    deathshadow, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  14. NetStar

    NetStar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    Likes Received:
    449
    Best Answers:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #14
    This post is more bloated than Bootstrap. Heck...I'm willing to bet Bootstrap has less pollution...

    In closing... Bootstrap will save you time and money as the UI materials are already designed allowing you to focus more on your content. However, it comes with a price. That price would be Slower loading times, polluted DOM, non-semantic use of html, and risk for slower browser processing and a finished product that may look just like the next site or product. If you are a seasoned designer/developer it may be better to avoid using bootstrap. If you are part of a team and collaborating on a project your employer may feel bootstrap is more suitable. In the end, it probably just won't matter.
     
    NetStar, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  15. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Best Answers:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #15
    ... and again you never actually answered HOW it does those things. You just keep saying they do. Just like every other person making such excuses.

    ... and if you considered that a bloated answer? sheesh. I worry for your children.
     
    deathshadow, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  16. Gary-SC

    Gary-SC Greenhorn

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    13
    #16
    I wouldn't bet on that, because it isn't true. I downloaded bootstrap.min.css from their CDN. I also copied deathshadow's post, created an experiment file "deathshadow.css" and minified it. Here are the actual numbers:

    - bootstrap.min.css => 156KB
    - deathshadow.css => 5KB

    I then unminified both of them, and I got these numbers:

    - bootstrap.min.css => 189KB
    - deathshadow.css => 5KB

    The Bootstrap minified file is at least 31 times larger than deathshadow's post in question, and the gap is even more significant when they are unminified. Therefore, I must conclude that the statement is based on speculation, figurative speech, and unfounded.

    How, exactly? It's still an assertion without reasoning, which doesn't satisfy the requirements deathshadow listed in the original post.

    Again, how, exactly? I agree, but it still doesn't address the "how" and "why" parts of the original question.

    Yet again, how, and why, exactly? I thought you said nobody cared. Are you saying that seasoned designers/developers are exempt from the "nobody cares" waiver?

    More suitable than creating your original CSS style guide, how? Again, we are talking about a professional contract work in this case where it will likely require some level of bespoke solutions. I either rewrite existing lines of code, or I write from scratch. I write code in either case. What's the difference?

    Then, what do you care? What the heck are you mocking deathshadow for if it didn't matter to you in the end?
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
    Gary-SC, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  17. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Best Answers:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #17
    ... and is ALL I'm used to getting when I ask said question. The CLOSEST he came to an actual answer is somewhere between "it's well documented" -- the inverse of name calling in that it implies the "competition" -- HTML and CSS -- are not. If we go by the W3C specifications that's an argument I can agree with, in that BY COMPARISON bootstrap is indeed well documented. Though by engineering standards it's nearly as half-assed since it IGNORES anything resembling the purpose of HTML or CSS, nor is it particularly well written.

    Most of the rest of it are -- to put it in propaganda terms -- glittering generalities, and unsupported claims. Again, neatly avoiding answering the ACTUAL question.

    Once more, exactly what I get every time I "dare" to ask the question, if even daring to do so doesn't result in an automatic permaban for daring to upset the status quo, bursting bubbles, and asking questions people don't actually have answers for. They make sweeping blanket statements about it being "easier" for beginners, or "easier" for collaboration, or "easier" for this, that, and the other damned thing; yet they cannot actually answer HOW any of those claims are actually true!

    The THREE best answers are:

    1) the official documentation for HTML/CSS sucks.

    2) its great for copy/paste of other people's work

    3) nobody cares about quality.

    Those are NOT answers to the actual huffing question!

    Though more infuriating is the simple fact that it is plainly apparent the people who CREATED bootstrap, and those who maintain it today -- were/are complete unqualified to write a single damned line of HTML/CSS. I think that's my biggest problem with it, since as I keep saying "for people who know nothing about building websites, BY people who know nothing about building websites" really isn't a great plan of action.

    See any of their examples with the missing headings, incorrect use of headings, improper heading depths, lists around non-list items, stacked DIV around tabular data, improper/invalid/inaccessible abuse of placeholder, scripted form validation, JavaScript doing CSS' job, JavaScript doing HTML's job, scripting only elements static in the markup, and pretty much every other epic /FAIL/ of web development reeking of never having extracted one's cranium from 1997's rectum!

    "oh any idiot can copy it" implies that ONLY these dipshit frameworks "provide" that -- because there aren't repositories of actual examples of using HTML/CSS properly like MDN? It's not a great defense of the practice.

    Worse, most can't even understand why those aren't actual answers, because they've been taught to accept them as such. By school, by parents, by government, by religion, by society as a whole. "That is the answer" when as you noticed, IT ISN'T! Not even close, not even the same ball park. That's why it feels like dealing with religious zealots and not sane/rational adults.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
    deathshadow, Jul 5, 2019 IP
  18. NetStar

    NetStar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    Likes Received:
    449
    Best Answers:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #18
    Both of you can't accept a different perspective. That will make you very unsuccessful in business. Especially you @deathshadow the stress will only return.
     
    NetStar, Jul 6, 2019 IP
  19. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,864
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Best Answers:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #19
    I can accept a different perspective if you can back it up with FACTS. You haven't. you've just parroted the same glittering generalities I always hear, none of which is in the slightest bit convincing. Hence, you didn't really answer the question!
     
    deathshadow, Jul 6, 2019 IP
  20. NetStar

    NetStar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    Likes Received:
    449
    Best Answers:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #20
    I did back it up with facts.

    Should I repeat myself for you or should you just read my post?

    I'll say it again and I'll be brief so it doesn't overwhelm or stress you:

    Claim: Companies find Bootstrap to save more time.
    Fact: Bootstrap already has the UI components from Menus, Grid, Alerts, Cards, Notifications, Breadcrumbs, Pagination, etc. already baked in. All you do is write your HTML tags which can be copied from the DOCS. This saves time as development teams can focus on content and not the materials of design.

    Claim: Companies find Bootstrap to be better when working with team.
    Fact: Bootstrap has a specific pattern you follow with class names and structures already created. This means every designer is writing using the same classes and not creating their own which can make it difficult for new designers to take over and add to. Designers can become familiar with bootstrap by reading the docs which makes on boarding to an existing project seamless (ie. they don't need to spend hours reviewing code trying to figure out what the previous designer or developer was trying to do).

    Claim: Bootstrap is easier for designers.
    Fact: Bootstrap has clear docs with plenty of copy and paste examples that designers can use. If the designer doesn't want to write from scratch there are thousands of free and paid templates available that a designer can edit.

    Those are the facts associated with the benefits of bootstrap claims. Companies like it because with above 3 points they can get their product or website infront of customers quicker. Products in front of customers make money. Products with extended development cycles cost money. This really can't be argued even though there may be other ways to accomplish the same thing. And those ways may actually be better from a developer perspective.

    Here are the trade offs of using such a library like bootstrap:

    • You must accept bloat. Meaning you will add several hundreds of KB of CSS or JavaScript that may not be used in your project.
    • You must be willing to risk slower performance. By having dozens or hundreds of unused elements polluting your DOM your browser may use more memory and cpu which can impact slower machines.
    • You must be willing to accept that your final web site or product will resemble hundreds or thousands of web sites out there.
    • You must still read through the DOCS to learn bootstrap. Some can argue the learning curve can be just as steep as learning CSS directly. (However, your focus will bootstrap will be on usage and not necessarily the design of the components).

    I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing. You keep replying that I am not stating facts. And FYI I'm not an advocate for Bootstrap and I don't use Bootstrap in any of my products. I do see the benefits of using it. I also see the disadvantages. You seem to not read or understand the benefits a company or individual would have by using it.

    Are you going to read my post or just reply saying there are no facts? It's getting ridiculous and you are looking ignorant.
     
    NetStar, Jul 6, 2019 IP