Topcoat – CSS for clean and fast web apps
topcoat.io
topcoat.io
Compare to http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/ and http://foundation.zurb.com/, which list some benefits right on the page -- you need people to instantly understand why they should use your framework over another css framework.
Also, make sure your demo pages represent responsiveness well -- I resized my browser on your mobile demo page and the tab bar ended up becoming nothingness -- perhaps some min-widths are needed?
Looks like it's an Adobe project.
Anyway, the point is, having an online form to submit a CLA seems like a positive step to me, if you're going to require CLAs at all. And a CLA that simply grants a perpetual, worldwide, irrevockable license to the content, as opposed to asking for a transfer of copyright ownership, doesn't seem to onerous to me. And for an Open Source project with commercial backing it is pretty commonplace.
That said, we are an Open Source startup, and we don't (currently) plan to ask for a CLA from outside contributors, but just something basically saying "I license my contribution under the Apache License v2".
Checked the source, and yes, it's bootstrap. Believe in your own product and everything :D
I still think jquerymobile is a good approach for hybrid apps because it is easy to learn and a full-stack framework and works on a large range of devices, one can only hope that webkit renders faster in the future
See http://bench.topcoat.io/ and http://bench.topcoat.io/v2/view/results?date=30&; (metrics for time spent in recalc styles, layout, paint, composite layers)
Knowing that there are more popular alternatives around, the question that everyone has is: why should i use this? This value prop is something that interests me greatly.
Options / Content / Fonts & Colors / Advanced ... / Minimal font size
(some pages don't like this)
Longing for the day of viewport-sized units though.
edit: I'll post this as an edit since there are multiple responses referring to http://www.getskeleton.com. Skeleton is similar to what I'm asking for but it seems to have stopped short. I would love to see unstyled carousels, alerts, modals, sticky headers, images with inline comments, etc. Basically, all the really nice stuff you get in Bootstrap and Foundation but without any of the styling.
I will say though that Foundation is much easier to customize styles for than Bootstrap, which is one of the primary reasons we now use Bootstrap for internal apps or side projects which we don't intend to implement a custom design, but Foundation for all sites which we plan on designing.
Also, your statement is factually incorrect. There was a single commit in the past year. If you had said that next month, you might have been correct.
The author is on twitter...
For us, things like buttons required a ton of overriding with Bootstrap when we customized the button design, but Foundation didn't. We found this largely to be the case because Foundation makes less assumptions about how buttons are styled to begin with. For example, buttons are pretty basic with square corners. If you want rounded corners, you just add the "round" class. If you want buttons with a different radius, you just create your own new class with a specific border radius and add that. Different color? Create a new class with a background color and add that.
What in Foundation did you experience pain trying to override?
Step 1. Include bootstrap.js
Step 2. Don't include bootstrap.css
I think the OP is referring to all of those things, without the design styling - not the literal styling.
Just saw in the job posting for Amicus:
"Open source projects, including our own in house, soon to be open sourced, real time Model View Presenter javascript framework with bi-directional data binding"
Are the existing libs so bad everyone has to reinvent the wheel constantly?
In a sense we need our MFC for the web.
To actually answer your question: yes. Existing libs for building large scale apps are in a transition period from server-side only apps to something more akin to native apps, and no one has come up with a great way to do it yet.
Honestly I hope people keep "reinventing the wheel". Web Development isn't in a place where we can just accept the state of the art and call it a day.
Web developers are an utter fucking embarrassment and shit like this is exactly why.
In particular:
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Competition with bootstrap is healthy. I consider bootstrap to be the Prototype of the css framework world, and I'm waiting for a jQuery to come around.
EDIT: That's not to say this is a replacement for highly-skilled designers, more that it's an easy way to get a passable interface in the absence of any design skill :)
Options are fantastic. Who loses? It's a win-win.
If there is a thread about bootstrap, some one posts "why must everything be bootstrap?" Get a thread about a bootstrap alternative and...... bingo!!!!
(Not having a go at you personally, Im sure your question was genuine. Just making general observation of the irony)
What's the difference from Bootstrap? Why don't you view its source? Read through the framework's documentation? For one the default styling is significantly different than Bootstrap.
The one thing I fondly miss about Slashdot is people would liberally tell you to RTFM when you asked something obvious that could have been answered by reading the article posted.
I disagree with your original comment. Yes, we can read the source. Yes, we can analyze it ourselves. But time is limited to all of us. The product should state exactly how it is different with the competition and why we should pick it. This is similar to how pg asks startups to describe themselves in one simple sentence. You don't tell pg that he lacks critical thinking for not reading my website.
Stating how you are different gives the customers focus. If you state that you are different because of X then you can go into the code and look at X particularly.
I think a good enough reason is because some one could. No reason why some one cant just say; I can do that too, and I know lots of people say they would like an alternative, so lets just give it a go and see if any one likes it enough to use. And for me, that's good enough.
Giving it a go for no obvious reason is the blood of a "hacker", IMHO. Its the doing of it that is of value. One learns form the experience.
That's pretty common in larger projects, and/or projects that have a commercial entity backing them. And there are some very good reasons for it. It helps keep the provenance and legality of the code in more of a known state, and could be important in a SCO v. IBM type case. Also, if re-licensing ever becomes desirable down the road, it's a hell of a lot easier if at least one entity or person has permission to release the entire code base under an arbitrary license. Take the Linux kernel, where it would be effectively impossible to relicense even if Linus wanted to, since the copyright ownership is spread out among gosh knows how many people, some of who nobody knows how to contact, and some of whom might not even be alive for all we know.
The FSF, ASF and other big open source organizations also typically require a CLA or a copyright assignment of some sort as well. So at least this isn't Adobe just being evil or anything. That's not to say whether they are or aren't evil, just saying that the CLA thing, in and of itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Adobe should focus on something like not trashing Fireworks.