Bootstrap 3.2.0 released (opens in new tab)

Dropping features, dropping IE8, adding features, rewriting the whole library, etc :p.

It's probably a demonstration how their new responsive embeds work.

They always post a video at the top of their blog entries.

All it shouts to me is that they were probably more focused on more important things. My mantra is functionality before design.

I've seen a bunch of stuff submitted here to HN that was nothing more than a landing page with a sign up form. I've rarely (if not never) signed up.

However, give me a page with a working proof-of-concept, I'll likely sign up regardless if it's built on default Bootstrap styling.

Reminds me of the days when people's biggest complaints about Reddit was that it looked bad.

Rather "I have better things to do", actually developing what matters for the page, and then focusing on the design later.

Actually, to me it screams MVP by a backend focused developer. It signals the exact opposite to me as long as it is a company of only 1-2 people. They know what they are doing but have no design chops...which is much better than the reverse.

Whenever an iPhone or Android app doesn't follow the standard styling for the platform -- aka if it looks different -- complaints flood in.

Whenever a web app doesn't look different, complaints flood in.

Consistent styling on disparate web pages is a good thing, in my optinion.

So how about all those Bootstrap sites that aren't immediately recognisable? Is it Bootstrap per se that causes your bile to rise or merely insufficiently customized Bootstrap?

For example - I think many of the templates here: https://wrapbootstrap.com/ are rather lovely. Do they elicit your disgust?

Have a look at the Angular website. It is hardly anything beyond the Bootstrap style. I understand what you're saying. A lack of concern about external presentation can be a warning sign but it's not exclusive nor a reliable indicator as other commentator's have mentioned

Re-inventing the wheel is your thing then so be it. Why stop at bootstrap, stop trusting all those using jQuery too.

So consider all the lines of code in Bootstrap that aren't in your hypothetical framework. They either do something or they don't. Let's assume the former because the latter implies incompetence and there's too many eyeballs on Bootstrap for that to be plausible.

So your question can be reformulated as "Bootstrap contains functionality that I don't think is needed".

If you agree that's a reasonable restatement then you can start a much more fruitful discussion if you could give a few examples and your reasoning behind why each one isn't needed.

What are you claiming the extra "thousands - 20" lines of code are for? I'm curious to know whether I need them or not.

Package all that up so people can just drop it in and have a nice looking site. Then people will use your system instead of Bootstrap.

All this bootstrap hate is mind numbing. The simple fact is, that I was able to build a site in ONE NIGHT after work using bootstrap as the basis for my design. Using anything less featured (and less familiar to me) than Bootstrap would have added enormous amounts of time before I could release. The site in question was able to get some traction because of its timely release and I am iterating on that now and growing.

The idea that using Bootstrap cost me time is objectively wrong, as is that of it costing me money. Currently, my minified CSS and javascript from bootstrap is not affecting the page load time in any significant way. For me, using Bootstrap for MVPs has proved supremely useful, time and time again. I would not be as bold as you and claim my experience is applicable to everyone, but it is obviously very beneficial for me.

Something not often considered by the haters is that most of the time, the customers that the MVP is directed at have no clue about Bootstrap. Unless I'm building something for developers, it's usually not something they have seen before. I've actually gotten many compliments on design, when it was largely just Bootstrap's CSS.

Further, putting some structure in for SASS typography isn't the same as creating good typography. I've found it extremely difficult to create readable, custom typography in the past and I'm quite sure I am not alone.

Your "framework" gives me some kind of grid system, some structure that I can go out and create my own typography system inside of and some kind of functionality to "reset" forms. And then I can add "stuff for [type=submit]". GREAT.

Things I used from Bootstrap 3 in my MVP created in one night:

1. Responsive grid system. 2. Typography 3. Colors 4. Notifications 5. Forms 6. Buttons 7. Modals 8. Panels 9. Wells 10. Image helper classes 11. Navigation Bar 12. Pagination 13. Popovers 14. Media Objects

Your idea for replacing Bootstrap falls so short of the mark it is laughable.

Because it has been tested on a wide range of browsers and devices and your custom CSS might not.It's exactly the same as"you might not need jQuery stuff".Yeah you might not need that but again,how many of us test our code on 50+ devices ,browsers and browser versions? So yeah you might need any tool that has a comprehensive test suite.

Because it saves time and has been extensively tested across all browsers? And there's vastly more utility to Bootstrap than just a grid, forms and icons.

It's also not an all or nothing proposition, you can simply include the bits and pieces you want to keep the size down.

e.g., @import '../../bower_components/bootstrap/less/grid';

Would you bother showing those <50 lines of code?

I agree with the people who disagreed with you below, so I'll try not to reiterate the points they mentioned. For example, the most important feature (to me) of bootstrap is its wide usage/testing/community across many devices. but another salient issue is that I have other things to worry about such as content. I dont want to be fussing around with these 50 lines of code (they are very important but not the bigger picture) when there there is a tried and true framework already available.

You just stepped on a lot of toes.

The most popular project on Github is : https://github.com/search?q=stars%3a%3E1&s=stars&type=Reposi...

Clearly there has to be something worth more than 50 lines of CSS.

In case anyone wonders about this, https://gist.github.com/richbradshaw/8949c61fb4ba7b7ed3ba is the basic grid back from Bootstrap 2 (the .container, .row, .spanN one).

Bootstrap isn't a prototyping framework — it's made for production. This fact subsumes the points about (1) testing across browsers, (2) being community-driven (and thus scientific), (3) aesthetic standards, and (4) implementation standards.

Sure you can make your own hammer, and you can even use a non-hammer you find sitting right next to you. But you'll quickly find out that some non-hammer won't accomplish everything you think a hammer ought to accomplish. Bootstrap isn't just an invention/innovation — it is a framework.

Your question honestly is no different from "Why do we need frameworks?" And we just need to stop wasting out time asking these bloated philosophical questions that get us nowhere.

"Why do we need dictionaries?" Well, because if everyone went about their own way, they'd all re-invent the wheel a thousand times over, but we'd never see any cars.