I think the point Codedgar was making is that Bootstrap has become a golden hammer. Sometime we allow a tool to become more than it needs to be. Tool developers do this by adding more and more features. User developers do this by using a given tool as an article of faith instead of a intentional decision. 500k overhead for a landing page is a lot!
That is true. And it has become very infamous among some developers for that reason. However, as I mentioned in another post, you can use sass (which Bootstrap 4 was made with), to manually include components/features that you want (e.g bootstrap-grid). It's extremely easy to customize to your likings through variable or class overrides.
Also, Bootstrap isn't just a tool-- it's a framework, so naturally it will have a lot of features (but again, you can opt-out if you'd like less KBs).
Absolutely, you should understand what CSS is before using Bootstrap. But the points brought up in this article are misleading:
Weight - Solve this with SASS (which is really meant to be used with Bootstrap 4) by importing only features/components that you need. You also don't have to use jQuery. It's completely optional at the expense that you won't be able to use JavaScript based features such as modals, dropdowns, scrollspys, etc.
Components and utilities - See 1.
Styling - Using SASS will allow you to specify overrides without using "!important".
This is exactly what I thought when reading the article, misleading and ill-advised. Bootstrap has been designed and built to address all of the points raised, allowing users to pick and choose, customize and override, flexibility at heart. I could possible argue that it can feel a bit dated at times, and there can be classes that you do not use, but the only way to avoid this, as with any Framework, is to build your own to match your specific needs.
But the biggest negative I find in using any prebuilt framework, is that once its in place in its hard to replace it. Investing time at the start of a project to assess whether or not the framework meets your needs (and future needs) is time well spent.
In my next projects that use React, I will need to consider about using these libraries : React-Bootstrap, Antd or Material UI. Maybe a combination of them, depending on certain features that will fit to my needs. In my current app, Bootstrap dominates, although there are already some parts I write using Antd or Material UI.
This is nonsense. Why are you including styles you are going to override? If you're using Bootstrap for its Grid Layout then just use a framework that only does that.
People think if the payload is small then there's no issue, but your browser still has to parse all those unused styles.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think the point Codedgar was making is that Bootstrap has become a golden hammer. Sometime we allow a tool to become more than it needs to be. Tool developers do this by adding more and more features. User developers do this by using a given tool as an article of faith instead of a intentional decision. 500k overhead for a landing page is a lot!
That is true. And it has become very infamous among some developers for that reason. However, as I mentioned in another post, you can use sass (which Bootstrap 4 was made with), to manually include components/features that you want (e.g bootstrap-grid). It's extremely easy to customize to your likings through variable or class overrides.
Also, Bootstrap isn't just a tool-- it's a framework, so naturally it will have a lot of features (but again, you can opt-out if you'd like less KBs).
Absolutely, you should understand what CSS is before using Bootstrap. But the points brought up in this article are misleading:
This is exactly what I thought when reading the article, misleading and ill-advised. Bootstrap has been designed and built to address all of the points raised, allowing users to pick and choose, customize and override, flexibility at heart. I could possible argue that it can feel a bit dated at times, and there can be classes that you do not use, but the only way to avoid this, as with any Framework, is to build your own to match your specific needs.
But the biggest negative I find in using any prebuilt framework, is that once its in place in its hard to replace it. Investing time at the start of a project to assess whether or not the framework meets your needs (and future needs) is time well spent.
In my next projects that use React, I will need to consider about using these libraries : React-Bootstrap, Antd or Material UI. Maybe a combination of them, depending on certain features that will fit to my needs. In my current app, Bootstrap dominates, although there are already some parts I write using Antd or Material UI.
This is nonsense. Why are you including styles you are going to override? If you're using Bootstrap for its Grid Layout then just use a framework that only does that.
People think if the payload is small then there's no issue, but your browser still has to parse all those unused styles.