| It depends on what you're doing. Kitchen-sink frameworks like Bootstrap are great for building tools that don't require a lot of customization of the UI, generally things like internal tools. But for user-facing stuff, designers and PMs want to tweak everything about the interface, and by the time you're done, you've rewritten most of the CSS and you actually spent more effort doing so than had you just written the CSS yourself the first time. Also, the way you wrote it ends up being a frankenstein-esque collection of style overrides. Zurb foundation is notorious for requiring hyper-specific CSS rules to override their default styles. Bootstrap has made some progress towards making it more tweakable, but if you're maintaining/customizing an app long-term, you're better off writing your own css for the most part. Edit: to add to that, the biggest problem that bootstrap solves IMO is a standard grid system, of which there are now many, more composable grid systems to choose from. Grid systems are so basic that its probably fine to pull one from the shelf, but with flexbox its really not that hard to write your own anyway. |
> to add to that, the biggest problem that bootstrap solves IMO is a standard grid system, of which there are now many, more composable grid systems to choose from. Grid systems are so basic that its probably fine to pull one from the shelf, but with flexbox its really not that hard to write your own anyway.
Bootstrap was sort of a pioneer in the generalized responsive framework space. I recall Zurb Foundation close behind and Skeleton a short time after that...although my time line might be a bit screwed up.
Now with flex box it is certainly easier to roll your own...and that reduces the value (somewhat) of using a framework like Bootstrap or Foundation or (insert other responsive framework here), but it doesn't make it 0 (IMO).