Hacker News Reader

Comment by taspeotis | Hacker News Reader

I've inherited a web application that's held together with invalid HTML and riddled with inline CSS. Got the green light to redo it all.

Replacing all the markup has been on hold pending BS3 (the mobile-first aspect of BS3 seems a big win over BS2), but while waiting I've seen a lot of people talking about Zurb Foundation and its "superior" grid system.

From a purely HTML5+CSS3 point of view, what do you think of BS vs. Zurb?

View on HN

Clearly, I can't speak to BS3, but the thing I like most about Foundation is the mobile-first grid: build your grid layout using Foundation's 'small-n' classes and it just works on larger screens too. If you want to develop more complex layouts for larger screens, all you have to do is append 'large-n' class names (and now 'medium-n' exists, too).

bs3 is mobile first also

That's interesting to read, beccause on my iPad 4 BS3 is very sluggish. Buttons visibly wait to show any change, menus the same. I don't have this problem with BS2. Maybe when it ships this will have been eliminated.

Hm, I'm experiencing that as well (probably to somewhat less extent) on a mini. Very strange.

Why do people think Zurb's grid system is better? I don't remember it being any different from Bootstrap's grid system.

Zurbs' grid uses percentage widths for columns and is mobile-first - BS 3 now uses a similar system which makes the only really difference SASS/SCSS vs LESS if you just want the grid

IIRC, Boostrap 2 can use percentage widths too -- you need to use the "row-fluid" class (instead of just "row").

Fair point

Responsive tables is a big plus for Zurb.

bootstrap 3's grid system now uses percents instead of fixed pixels. also col-lg or col-sm classes can be used to design/show different content on different resolutions. my vote is on bootstrap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com