[michaelbuckbee]

In general Foundation is considered smaller and lighter than Bootstrap, many devs also prefer its use of SASS instead of LESS (which is the Bootstrap default css pre-processor).

There is also a smaller community around Foundation, which is good and bad: there isn't the massive third party ecosystem that Bootstrap has [1] but on the flip side many feel that Foundation sites don't look so 'Bootstrappy'.

I'm really invested in Bootstrap, but I'm stoked that more and more people are using front-end frameworks as they pretty much across the board improve developer productivity and make sites better/more usable.

1 - http://www.bootstraphero.com/the-big-badass-list-of-twitter-...

[wilfra]

Not looking bootstrappy sounds like a good reason to use it for some projects. Is there a 'stock foundation' looking site you can link to, I'm curious if I'd recognize it.

[michaelbuckbee]

If you're not digging through the source you'd probably think it was a lightly styled Bootstrap site as many of the same tells are present (black top navbar, etc).

However, I think there is some massive confirmation bias at work. If a site customizes Bootstrap and it looks nice nobody credits it as a 'Bootstrap Looking' site, so as a result it is only when the defaults are used that people really pick up on it.

That coupled with the fact that there are many more Bootstrap sites kicking around out there I think has led to the misconception about "Bootstrap Looking" sites.

[baby]

I don't think it's an unfair reputation. Looks and feeling of a website is heavily influenced by its button (I've read a great article somewhere analyzing the internet big guys' buttons). Bootstrap's buttons are not easily customizable, thus people feel like they're running into bootstrap-like websites a lot.