I'm looking into Bootstrap vs Foundation my criterias are:
我正在研究Bootstrap vs Foundation我的标准是:
- Lightweight
- Easily customized
- Easily build complex HTML layout
- Mobile / Responsive
轻松构建复杂的HTML布局
移动/响应
In my past experience with Bootstrap, building layout from a designer mockup as a "pixel perfect" HTML was not trivial.
在我过去使用Bootstrap的经历中,从设计器模型构建布局作为“像素完美”HTML并非易事。
Your thoughts, ideas are appreciated.
您的想法,想法表示赞赏。
2 个解决方案
#1
3
Bootstrap and Zurb Foundation are both CSS frameworks, but they have a different purposes.
Bootstrap和Zurb Foundation都是CSS框架,但它们有不同的用途。
The primary goal of Bootstrap is fast prototyping of websites or web applications that have a base style. Since the styles are opinionated, that makes it more work to get it to match a custom design. It is heavily supported and a large community. It is built on Less and that can be a plus for some people.
Bootstrap的主要目标是快速原型化具有基本风格的网站或Web应用程序。由于样式是固执的,这使得它更适合于匹配自定义设计。它得到了大力支持,并拥有庞大的社区。它建立在Less之上,对某些人来说可能是一个加分。
Zurb Foundation 4 takes a different approach. It is more of a base framework for a project that will be customized fully based on project need. The styles are easily overridable. It is a great prototyping tool and it is not opinionated with styles. The grid system is great, and anyone can understand it. If you use Foundation your designer will think differently (they will keep mobile in mind more). It is built on SASS. That makes it easy to incorporate Compass sprite generation. I found the CSS classes in foundation to be easier for beginners to pick up and remember.
Zurb Foundation 4采用了不同的方法。它更像是一个项目的基础框架,将根据项目需求进行完全定制。样式很容易被覆盖。它是一个伟大的原型设计工具,并没有与样式有关。网格系统很棒,任何人都可以理解它。如果您使用Foundation,您的设计师会有不同的想法(他们会更多地考虑移动设备)。它建立在SASS上。这使得合并Compass精灵生成变得容易。我发现基础中的CSS课程更容易让初学者学习和记忆。
You can watch some of the Zurb presentation videos on the internet and they really help you understand why they built it.
您可以在互联网上观看一些Zurb演示视频,它们真的可以帮助您了解它们为什么构建它。
I was working on my own framework to realize that everything I needed and more was already built into Foundation. The hardest part is understanding Compass and Sass. After that you will get the hang of Foundation easily.
我正在研究自己的框架,意识到我需要的一切以及更多内容已经建立在基金会中。最难的部分是了解Compass和Sass。之后,您将轻松获得基金会的支持。
#2
0
It really depends on which of your criteria are more important.
这取决于您的哪个标准更重要。
Foundation is built for making complex, responsive websites, but it has a pretty big footprint if you want to use everything it has to offer. Bootstrap, on the other hand, is comparatively small but doesn't have anywhere near as much functionality built in. I can't speak to how easy it is to customize Bootstrap, but altering Foundation to fit your needs is very simple (especially if you use the SASS version).
Foundation是为制作复杂,响应迅速的网站而构建的,但如果您想要使用它提供的所有内容,它的占用空间非常大。另一方面,Bootstrap相对较小,但内置的功能并不多。我不能说自定义Bootstrap是多么容易,但改变基础以满足您的需求非常简单(特别是如果你使用SASS版本)。
It's a subjective choice: if your priority is to use something with a small footprint, go with Bootstrap. If having a big, responsive-ready library to work with is more important to you, go with Foundation.
这是一个主观的选择:如果您的优先考虑是使用占地面积小的东西,请使用Bootstrap。如果拥有一个响应准备就绪的大型库对您来说更重要,请选择Foundation。
#1
3
Bootstrap and Zurb Foundation are both CSS frameworks, but they have a different purposes.
Bootstrap和Zurb Foundation都是CSS框架,但它们有不同的用途。
The primary goal of Bootstrap is fast prototyping of websites or web applications that have a base style. Since the styles are opinionated, that makes it more work to get it to match a custom design. It is heavily supported and a large community. It is built on Less and that can be a plus for some people.
Bootstrap的主要目标是快速原型化具有基本风格的网站或Web应用程序。由于样式是固执的,这使得它更适合于匹配自定义设计。它得到了大力支持,并拥有庞大的社区。它建立在Less之上,对某些人来说可能是一个加分。
Zurb Foundation 4 takes a different approach. It is more of a base framework for a project that will be customized fully based on project need. The styles are easily overridable. It is a great prototyping tool and it is not opinionated with styles. The grid system is great, and anyone can understand it. If you use Foundation your designer will think differently (they will keep mobile in mind more). It is built on SASS. That makes it easy to incorporate Compass sprite generation. I found the CSS classes in foundation to be easier for beginners to pick up and remember.
Zurb Foundation 4采用了不同的方法。它更像是一个项目的基础框架,将根据项目需求进行完全定制。样式很容易被覆盖。它是一个伟大的原型设计工具,并没有与样式有关。网格系统很棒,任何人都可以理解它。如果您使用Foundation,您的设计师会有不同的想法(他们会更多地考虑移动设备)。它建立在SASS上。这使得合并Compass精灵生成变得容易。我发现基础中的CSS课程更容易让初学者学习和记忆。
You can watch some of the Zurb presentation videos on the internet and they really help you understand why they built it.
您可以在互联网上观看一些Zurb演示视频,它们真的可以帮助您了解它们为什么构建它。
I was working on my own framework to realize that everything I needed and more was already built into Foundation. The hardest part is understanding Compass and Sass. After that you will get the hang of Foundation easily.
我正在研究自己的框架,意识到我需要的一切以及更多内容已经建立在基金会中。最难的部分是了解Compass和Sass。之后,您将轻松获得基金会的支持。
#2
0
It really depends on which of your criteria are more important.
这取决于您的哪个标准更重要。
Foundation is built for making complex, responsive websites, but it has a pretty big footprint if you want to use everything it has to offer. Bootstrap, on the other hand, is comparatively small but doesn't have anywhere near as much functionality built in. I can't speak to how easy it is to customize Bootstrap, but altering Foundation to fit your needs is very simple (especially if you use the SASS version).
Foundation是为制作复杂,响应迅速的网站而构建的,但如果您想要使用它提供的所有内容,它的占用空间非常大。另一方面,Bootstrap相对较小,但内置的功能并不多。我不能说自定义Bootstrap是多么容易,但改变基础以满足您的需求非常简单(特别是如果你使用SASS版本)。
It's a subjective choice: if your priority is to use something with a small footprint, go with Bootstrap. If having a big, responsive-ready library to work with is more important to you, go with Foundation.
这是一个主观的选择:如果您的优先考虑是使用占地面积小的东西,请使用Bootstrap。如果拥有一个响应准备就绪的大型库对您来说更重要,请选择Foundation。