I thought I might give bootstrap a chance by recreating an existing website. Problem is that this website is "simpler" with a carousel and a dark mode toggle being the few more complicated features, so it might be even faster to simply write the CSS myself and get my hands dirty. Using bootstrap for this seems more and more overkill, the more I look at it. On the other hand I know bootstrap already takes much care of responsiveness and vendor-prefixes and so on. What have I gotten myself into with bootstrap...

Bootstrap is fine like acceptable level coffee is fine. It gets the job done, it is well documented, battle tested.... and will save folks time who don't want to dork around with all the detailed CSS-isms.

I have quite literally written at least 20 websites that use Bootstrap simply because the client wanted it because it was (still sort of is) a Buzzword only to literally use nothing but the .container class.

It's like 20 lines of CSS... that class. Including media queries... I could easily cut and paste it and obfuscate it into my own CSS.

But I don't. I load the whole fucking Bootstrap CSS file... and the JS file too... because the client wants Bootstrap.

I long for the days when the client just stupidly said "make it pop" and stayed the fuck out of what platforms we use.

Bootstrap, like any other CSS framework, is born out of a deep misunderstanding what CSS is even about.

CSS is meant to complement HTML, not to rule it.

Working around boot can become so tiresome. I really do hate when I can't make sense of it

Bootstrap does more than just give you premade components and helpers classes. They’ve solved nearly every possible browser quirk you can think of.

Making it look nicer is a matter of editing a few SASS variables. Why anyone would want to write CSS from scratch is beyond me.

I write css from scratch for every website i build. The css is simple, clean and dead easy to maintain. I obviously have a good selection of clips that I have built over the years that solve html and browser differences such as ul and ol. I don’t use pre-processors, css is sufficiently advanced to use variables and calc. Sites load superfast. Build responsively and breakpoints are easy to do. Have a good reset. Set body font-size to 10px and then supply all sizes in rems, you have the basis for consistency across all browsers and platforms. I can maintain design integrity ‘cos I know what I am doing in a fluid medium. Bootstrap and Wordpress fir that matter can go fuck themselves. Life is easier without them. If a client wants to specify what I should use I simply tell them to find some other mother ‘cos I’m not bothered I have plenty of work from people that know I deliver the goods.

@helloworld The only point I disagree with is setting the font size. That shouldn't be done because of accessibility. Just use 100% as base (whatever the user has set), and the trick is to make the layout and breakpoints in rem anyway.

@helloworld nobody uses px for sizing anymore.

@helloworld ^ So much this. I’ve got a CSS reset I start with.

Then I’ve got a set of my own Bootstrap overrides so my shit will still look good after Bootstrap is needlessly called.

Then I’ve got a set of form styles that cover pretty much everything.

If I need to be a fancy fuck, I’ve got sets of each of these in scss with vars to swap out primary, secondary, and tertiary colors.

Beyond that, a few divs (or articles and asides if I’m again being a fancy fuck) with some responsive grid templates and the styling for just about anything is done.

I honestly don’t understand why people go through such incredible lengths to avoid this.

@Fast-Nop Setting the base font size means that your rem sizes are consistent. The base font size is different in different browsers so this sets everything to the same so you build from that.

@redbastien Read my response above I am setting the base font size as this is different for different browsers. believe me im no amateur.

@helloworld Of course the base font size is inconsistent. That's the point of letting the user set it. That's an accessibility feature - which you're overriding.

@Fast-@Fast-Nop No. maybe 10 years ago. Browsers support a zoom function that scales everything not just font size. So integrity of layout is important and this is a way to ensure that across browsers and platform. I’m certainly not going to change that method.

@helloworld What "integrity of layout"? Web isn't print. Basing layout on px is hopelessly outdated anyway unless most of your content is bitmaps images.

Also, browser zoom enlarges images, too, which isn't good especially for stuff like screenshots.

@helloworld sorry bro you’re wrong on this one. In the world of responsive design ‘rem’ reigns supreme.

@redbastien that shits old af... everybody uses vw now.

(Just joking... I mean I do use vw a lot... but this is more just a joke on how the front end standards are in a buck wild state of flux rn)

@Fast-Nop Oh dear. You still don’t get it I use rems for font sizing. I set the base font size so that the relative em size is consistent. Try doing som reading on the topic. Layout and typography is important in the real world, the one with clients and designers. It’s about using the fluid medium to your advantage and satisfying all audiences including the ones paying for it.

@redbastien I agree I use rem if you read my fucking responses!!!!!!

I’m with you @helloworld

I use vw based and rem based font sizes heavily...

But my base body font sizes are left in px to better handle browser scaling.

@helloworld Yeah you use rem relative to a base size that you set in px - so effectively, you are using px based layout.

In the real world, i.e. one with lawsuits, also WCAG 2.1 is important.

I like how this started with the topic bootstrap and then drifted away into a chat about css units and principles 😂
but interesting viewpoints nonetheless...