Have been using and loving Bootstrap for the past few weeks. Can't recommend it highly enough. I thought Themeforest templates were a great secret weapon, but the thoughtfulness that went into the actual markup in Bootstrap makes working with it fast and painless.
That said: no idea what's in Bootstrap 2. Someone got a concise summary?
Button groups. Toolbars. Icons sprites. Progress bars. Checkboxes and radios as buttons. More appropriate terminology (Tooltips instead of Twispies). Some retouches on styling and class naming. An overall increase of functionality for most of the existing stuff.
It's definitely a worthwhile upgrade, and it seems to be all added functionality, not a lot of semantic changes.
The big one, for me at least, is the move from a 16-column grid to a 12-column grid. I didn't look into the technical differences, just those that would impact development with it.
I just converted a ton of stuff (like last week), so it's pretty fresh in my mind. I feel like I should have checked the wip branch first, but this has really become my favorite kit. I've been about 95% YUI and the remainder OOCSS, and Bootstrap is the fastest concept-to-reality I've used.
I'm not too worried about upgrading if there are some compelling reasons to do so.
Question: I notice that the button styles are still static (as are a lot of the color styles). Are there any plans to implement project-wide color changing based on the primary color variable?
I ask because I've hacked this out manually in a project at my day job, and another in my own free time. [Edit]: + I'd be more than happy to contribute this.
Yeah, it's a fantastic combo. I recently opted to do subsequent dev on Knockout.js, though. LOC for markup, styling, and javascript under this regime is fantastically small and really quick to develop.
Don't mean to hijack, but I'm curious if anyone has gone the other way, i.e., choose backbone over knockout. My main concern is DOM overload/GC issues. Backbone is also considerably smaller, but that's not as important in my context.
Bootstrap and backbone are great together. I wish there was more concrete tutorials on getting the two to play nice, but all I could find was bits and pieces about both. Even with that I have managed to knock out a few prototypes fairly easily.
I've been using Twitter Bootstrap on a two projects for months. It has a huge upside, even for designers who write their own CSS. Version 2 seems to be filling in some gaps ( like responsive design and navigation lists/tabs ) and "filling out" with many nice-to-haves ( like progress bars ). I'm really looking forward to using version 2. Thank you Mark and Twitter team for the great work!
While Less and Sass are really similar products that do pretty much the same thing; I switched my site from initially using Sass (scss) to now using Less for three reasons:
a) Bootstrap uses less and I'm using bootstrap.
b) It was trivial to go from sass to less. Mostly just renaming files to have the right suffix.
c) I'm sure someone can argue differently, but I really think that the mixin syntax for Less is significantly better than Sass. I don't use mixins all the time, but this is really important if you want re-usable code. With Less, you don't have to declare @mixin and then @include it. Instead, any less block becomes a potential mixin.
That said, Sass has a compressor/minimizer and Less doesn't really have one. I had to integrate clean-css into my builds. It would be nice if Less had this by default.
As a developer who just doesn't seem to "get" CSS, I love bootstrap. I can understand how it all works and it's so simple to use and quick to get things up and looking nice.
Markup and CSS are the ones that generally slow me down the most. I really like where Bootstrap is going. It's a great boon for developers in my opinion, not to mention quick prototyping of designs for everyone.
Great job and many thanks for this excellent framework!
I've been waiting for this release for an upcoming project. I assume the use of HTML5 specific tags is optional. I noticed that the page used for the docs uses "<ul class="nav">" instead of "<nav>", but does utilize the "<footer>" tag. Is there a specific advantage to not using the "<nav> tag?
I have used Zorb's Foundation for all of my projects, just because of the responsive layout.
Should I bother "porting" them to Bootstrap or is there no real advantage?
I still am reluctant to move to Bootstrap, but due to its popularity I think it will get more updates and will attract more people willing to improve it ...
Does anyone know if there are more detailed upgrade docs available? The ones provided in the repo (http://markdotto.com/bs2/docs/upgrading.html) mainly cover features and I don't fancy finding all the various classes that have changed since 1.4.
I recently used Bootstrap to skin the initial version of my paste bin project, and it produced a very nice result with no effort, especially for someone who is not a front-end guy.
I used Bootstrap 2 for my weekend Hackathon project. The best feature I find is the media query. Also dividing the grid from 16 to 12 makes dividing the page up into 3 columns possible.
[+] [-] tptacek|14 years ago|reply
That said: no idea what's in Bootstrap 2. Someone got a concise summary?
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|14 years ago|reply
Here's my quick (and probably incomplete) list:
- new 12 column grid
- responsive layout
- tons of new JS plugins
- stacked forms are now the default
- lots of new 'controls', like split buttons, new tabs, toolbars, highly styled radio buttons and check boxes.
- icons(!)
[+] [-] esmevane|14 years ago|reply
Button groups. Toolbars. Icons sprites. Progress bars. Checkboxes and radios as buttons. More appropriate terminology (Tooltips instead of Twispies). Some retouches on styling and class naming. An overall increase of functionality for most of the existing stuff.
It's definitely a worthwhile upgrade, and it seems to be all added functionality, not a lot of semantic changes.
[+] [-] ibejoeb|14 years ago|reply
I just converted a ton of stuff (like last week), so it's pretty fresh in my mind. I feel like I should have checked the wip branch first, but this has really become my favorite kit. I've been about 95% YUI and the remainder OOCSS, and Bootstrap is the fastest concept-to-reality I've used.
I'm not too worried about upgrading if there are some compelling reasons to do so.
[+] [-] hmigneron|14 years ago|reply
- Responsive design using media queries
- CSS Progress bars
- A few new javascript plugins (Carousel, Typehead)
- Icons
The documentation is online here in case you missed the link the article : http://markdotto.com/bs2/docs/index.html
Maybe someone has a better summary
[+] [-] esmevane|14 years ago|reply
Question: I notice that the button styles are still static (as are a lot of the color styles). Are there any plans to implement project-wide color changing based on the primary color variable?
I ask because I've hacked this out manually in a project at my day job, and another in my own free time. [Edit]: + I'd be more than happy to contribute this.
(Probably should crosspost this to Github.)
[+] [-] scorpion032|14 years ago|reply
You can always change and recompile.
[+] [-] sheraz|14 years ago|reply
The learning curve on this one was not bad at all -- the examples are great!
[+] [-] ibejoeb|14 years ago|reply
Don't mean to hijack, but I'm curious if anyone has gone the other way, i.e., choose backbone over knockout. My main concern is DOM overload/GC issues. Backbone is also considerably smaller, but that's not as important in my context.
[+] [-] dkhenry|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chefsurfing|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrchess|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] latchkey|14 years ago|reply
a) Bootstrap uses less and I'm using bootstrap.
b) It was trivial to go from sass to less. Mostly just renaming files to have the right suffix.
c) I'm sure someone can argue differently, but I really think that the mixin syntax for Less is significantly better than Sass. I don't use mixins all the time, but this is really important if you want re-usable code. With Less, you don't have to declare @mixin and then @include it. Instead, any less block becomes a potential mixin.
That said, Sass has a compressor/minimizer and Less doesn't really have one. I had to integrate clean-css into my builds. It would be nice if Less had this by default.
[+] [-] joshfinnie|14 years ago|reply
https://github.com/jlong/sass-twitter-bootstrap
[+] [-] RexM|14 years ago|reply
Thanks so much to the twitter team.
[+] [-] medius|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tnorthcutt|14 years ago|reply
It seems non-admins cannot tag/label an issue, FYI.
[+] [-] mrgreenfur|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masonhensley|14 years ago|reply
https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/tree/2.0-wip
[+] [-] neovive|14 years ago|reply
I've been waiting for this release for an upcoming project. I assume the use of HTML5 specific tags is optional. I noticed that the page used for the docs uses "<ul class="nav">" instead of "<nav>", but does utilize the "<footer>" tag. Is there a specific advantage to not using the "<nav> tag?
[+] [-] yeswecan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JustinMowka|14 years ago|reply
Should I bother "porting" them to Bootstrap or is there no real advantage?
I still am reluctant to move to Bootstrap, but due to its popularity I think it will get more updates and will attract more people willing to improve it ...
[+] [-] envex|14 years ago|reply
http://foundation.zurb.com/
[+] [-] Dachande663|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsxwolf|14 years ago|reply
http://paste.ly/
Looking forward to digging into Bootstrap 2.
[+] [-] zmillman|14 years ago|reply
(you can also add the 'primary' class to provide a splash of color and highlight the recommended action)
[+] [-] maukdaddy|14 years ago|reply
http://paste.ly/pastes/25
[+] [-] joshmanders|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpolk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffclark|14 years ago|reply
Used Bootstrap while building my new (launched today!) project. It sped up overall development more than I could have imagined.
Really excited for the responsive upgrades.
[+] [-] ricksta|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gizzlon|14 years ago|reply
Seems like a very big increase.. Should we be worried?
(edit: Looks great though ;)
[+] [-] duncans|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnx123-up|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lubos|14 years ago|reply