Basically - in bootstrap...etc, if you want to do something "nonstandard" by library view you need to carefully unmake all the defaults.

Here for example there are no default paddings forced upon you.

It all depends on wether you know what you want, or just need "anything that works - doesn't matter how and what it does".

I kind of like the way Pure sets up their grid. Rather than doing bootstrap's row-and-column approach, you give things fractional widths, and what should fit into a row does.

Pure doesn't seem to support nested grids and column reordering, as both Bootstrap and Foundation do.

At some point I want to experiment with just how decoupled these big frameworks' grid systems are from the rest of the package. For example, can you use the following combinations:

Foundation 4 grid + Bootstrap 3 components

Bootstrap 3 grid + Topcoat components (Topcoat has no grid yet anyway)

Suzy grid + [Foundation 4 | Bootstrap 3 | Topcoat] components

etc.

I also want to performance test them all, using both Chrome dev tools [1] and Topcoat's Chromium Telemetry tests [2].

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1IqzeA3XXg

[2]: https://github.com/topcoat/topcoat/tree/master/dev/test/perf...

Bootstrap has default/fluid/fixed to choose between, which can be confusing. In terms of mechanics, you nest .container, .row, and .span# and .offset#. It's just more complex.

I don't know how Pure does nested because I haven't tried it, but from reading the docs, it looks like you just put a new .pure-g classed div inside whatever cell you are nesting inside, then put the nested units inside it.