
Bootstrap or not? High level pros and cons of using Twitter Bootstrap - Loic
http://blog.baregit.com/2012/bootstrap-or-not-bootstrap
======
gigantor
Bootstrap is a godsend for the corporate world and the vast majority of
industry software shops that don't have huge levels public web exposure. Most
of these places don't have the resources to hire dedicated UI specialists with
the hottest CSS 3.0 skills, are still forced with IE6 somehow, and end up
being designed by devs who liberally use nested tables and iframes like it's
1999.

I assume this dislike for bootstrap comes from those who believe it wants to
compete as the de facto UI for anything of large scale or designed for instant
sex appeal. Anything on that level will have their CSS highly customized and
optimized by their specialized UI staff. I can also assure you, CSS and choice
of UI framework is the absolute _least_ of your priorities over business
development, marketing, revenue generation, and security holes. Get the
product out the door, and see if people actually want it before you worry
about them inspecting your page source and find that you've used bootstrap.

~~~
arkitaip
_I can also assure you, CSS and choice of UI framework is the absolute least
of your priorities over business development, marketing, revenue generation,
and security holes._

Unless, of course, people find the design of your MVP so utterly boring that
they dislike the product entirely. I don't believe that design can be treated
as an optional feature, that it's something you can add on later.

------
robomartin
Here's what I find interesting:

Take a look at the computer you are reading this on. Mac, PC, Linux, other?
Every single program on your machine has a uniform UI. Sure, there might be
tweaks here and there and differences in icons, but the UI is consistent. You
get on any Mac and things look and work the same way. You get on any PC (save
Windows 8!) and everything looks and works the same way.

Has anyone ever said: I am not going to use <insert very useful software tool
here> because the UI looks exactly the same as the UI on <insert another
common software tool here>? Probably not.

Well, why is it that every site on the 'net has to look and work differently?
If form follows function then most sites don't really need to reinvent the
wheel. Yes, they need to deal with app-specific paradigms, but that's no
different than the difference between, say, Excel, Word, Photoshop, iTunes and
Dreamweaver.

Somehow on the desktop we have come to understand that a stable, uniform and
well-understood UI is actually useful. While I am not sure that this
translates directly into the web, I don't really agree with the idea that lots
of sites using Bootstrap is equivalent to the end of the universe as we know
it.

Considering how many downright awful sites there are this is probably an
absolute gift from the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who's name shall never be
uttered in vane).

~~~
pgeorgi
"Every single program on your machine has a uniform UI"

Minesweeper, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Live Mail,
Windows Live Messenger, Word 2010

6 Applications by a single vendor. 6 UIs that are similar (WIMP paradigm et
al) but different (UI looks) - just like any 6 websites are similar (links,
some forms, 2 or 3 pane layouts, ...) but different (design details).

------
kappaknight
Why are there so many of these debates?

This is really starting to be like php vs. ruby vs. dot net discussions. The
end result is it doesn't matter as long as you're comfortable starting and
finishing a project with it.

The value Bootstrap brings is to save time. Also, no one really should care
what developers think of this as the teams race towards finishing their MVP.
Your job is to finish the MVP - that's it!

IF YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS are bitching at you for making yet another Bootstrap
site, then let's come back and debate this. You guys are all focusing on the
wrong problem.

~~~
jsnk
I think most notable backlashes against Bootstrap came from the designer
community. They do have valid points, but one cannot ignore the motives of the
designers. Obviously due to Bootstrap, importance of designers at very early
startup stage has diminished significantly.

This debate around Bootstrap seems really similar to enterprise web developers
who used to use Java and C# complaining about Rails and Django a few years
ago.

~~~
jasonlotito
So... if it's a problem with designers not liking bootstraps stale design, why
not build templates that use Bootstrap as a base and release them to the
public?

I really don't see the issue.

~~~
coderdude
Two plugs in a single thread is pushing it, but please see my other comment
regarding Bootstrap themes/templates:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3701287>

------
jacobr
Yesterday me and my girlfriend were looking for a car related service, and we
found a site which supplied that service. It was obvious that it was using
some kind of generic design template, so both of us got a bit suspicious, and
not until we had researched the company for quite a while were we OK with
doing business with them. It just didn't feel serious.

I feel the same way with a Bootstrap site that isn't customized at all - I
would hesitate doing business with them, because if you don't have the
resources to put a day on at least _customizing_ your design, are you really
trustworthy? Of course you can be, and it's not a completely rational feeling,
but I would be surprised if I am the only one with that gut reaction.

For minor tools (such as <http://dochub.io>) and other small projects, Twitter
Bootstrap is awesome and doesn't even need much customization, but I don't
think it's a good idea to use it uncustomized for a business.

~~~
tptacek
I know several people on HN who have successful software (SaaS) businesses who
will tell you that this just isn't really the case; that the overwhelming
majority of your customers for something like car buying aren't going to
finger you as a "Bootstrap user" and then think less of you for it.

It's hard not to wonder whether the fact that you're the kind of person who
posts on HN doesn't bias your response to sites like this.

One way to get some real data on this would be to ask your friends to ask
their nontechnical friends and relatives for a list of sites they actually
paid money at, and then take a hard look at how good their designs really are.

------
zalew
The problem with Bootstrap is people don't treat it as a framework, they treat
it as a theme. If people want to use Boostrap they _can_ and _should_ do
custom themes that don't look like the tutorial. But they don't, they include
the css/js, set some 'row', 'span4' and are happy with the result, because the
navbar, forms and buttons are fancy startupish.

Simple conclusion: take advantage of the technical solutions Bootstrap
provides and ffs put some work to make it look at least a bit original and
branded.

~~~
tptacek
For most people's applications, and in particular for the space of apps for
which people pay money, it matters not- one- whit how much different your app
looks than Bootstrap's native theme, because Bootstrap's native theme looks
better than 80% of all web apps normal people come into contact with.

Different- for- different's- sake is a curse on web developers; it costs more
time, more momentum, and more initiative than any other issue I can think of.
Get the value working and proven _first_ , then, when people are paying for
it, start thinking of how much you'd budget to make your application visually
distinctive.

There are exceptions, but they tend to prove the rule.

~~~
zalew
> Bootstrap's native theme looks better than 80% of all web apps normal people
> come into contact with

Today. The more people use raw TB the faster that 80% approaches zero and
you'll get to my conclusion.

~~~
tptacek
You're right; I left out the last part of my sentence, which should have read
"... and yet still pay money to".

You will probably not pull off the next Foursquare or Pinterest using Twitter
Bootstrap. But: you're not going to pull off the next Foursquare or Pinterest
anyways.

So think of it this way: this debate has the question backwards. _If you're
doing a startup for which a major risk of your version 1 is that you built it
with Bootstrap, you probably picked a bad startup idea_.

------
tptacek
I use Sass with Bootstrap without a problem. If you're the kind of person that
has a hard time moving from one preprocessor to another, consider whether
that's a VERY STRONG argument to go with something like Bootstrap, because it
solves a lot of other problems that you could lose whole days or weeks to.

~~~
LeandroLovisolo
If you're using Sass with Bootstrap, then you're probably using the compiled
version of Bootstrap (i.e. the final .css file.) If that's the case, you're
missing out all the LESS mixins and variables that Bootstrap provides.

If you're serious about adopting Bootstrap, you should consider switching to
LESS.

The less-rails-boostrap gem makes it easy if you're working on a Rails app. It
integrates seamlessy with Rails' asset pipeline, and has a generator for Rails
scaffold CSS.

<https://github.com/metaskills/less-rails>

<https://github.com/metaskills/less-rails-bootstrap>

~~~
barmstrong
You can also use the sass forks of bootstrap (700 watchers)

<https://github.com/jlong/sass-twitter-bootstrap>

~~~
LeandroLovisolo
That's awesome. Glad to hear a Sass port exists.

Out of curiosity, (and assuming you use the sass-twitter-boostrap gem in your
projects) do you use any other Sass libraries besides Bootstrap port?

~~~
danneu
I use the Compass library which works great with Bootstrap. The recent
Railscast also got me testing out the [Bourbon
gem](<https://github.com/thoughtbot/bourbon>) (a similar Sass libary) on a new
project along with Bootstrap.

------
cmer
It might be a non-issue, but I am concerned about the performance of Bootstrap
on older/slower computers as well as mobile devices. The stylesheet is so
huge, I assume there has to be some kind of performance penalty somewhere? Or
maybe I'm just overly paranoid... thoughts?

------
pbreit
I wouldn't mind if the pendulum swings a bit towards unique functionality and
away from unique aesthetics. A lot of the energy spent on unique look and feel
could be better spent on usability and functionality.

------
barmstrong
"I wonder why Less and SASS are not merged in a single project"

I've also wondered this.

------
vertr
I think it is a given that you shouldn't use boostrap in it's entirety for a
startup. However, using bootstrap for _parts_ of the library is very
effective. I'm using the excellent 'Bootstrap-sass-rails' gem, which lets you
include all or just parts of bootstrap easily in the Rails asset pipeline. I
then get the mixins, forms, type treatments, dropdowns, css reset and more for
my project. Without the generic graphical styles.

Also, all of the less is converted to SASS.

Here's the gem if anyone is interested:
<https://github.com/yabawock/bootstrap-sass-rails>

------
jsavimbi
> Harder to be original. Because we all start with the same base.

That is so not true. What is easy is to use the basic theme to build out a
prototype of your app. Customizing will always be harder, but then again, it's
been hard to build out a well-designed site since the very beginning.

To say that it's hard because it comes with a default theme is to not
understand.

~~~
FreeFull
The default theme makes it easier not to be original, but I don't see how it
makes it harder to be original anywhere.

~~~
jsavimbi
It doesn't. Sounds like there's a lack of imagination in that article or
they're alluding to the inevitable result that people who possess neither the
skills nor interest in making a visual customization of their site will leave
it standing on the default theme, populating the web with a lot of sameness.

If it makes it easier for people to communicate faster, than I'm all for it.

~~~
Loic
I wrote the article, so please let me try to reformulate a bit better. When
you start with a so complete, consistent and well though base design, it is
hard to introduce new _original_ concepts. This is because these new concepts
will have to somehow _fit_ nicely with the base design. It is kind of
attracting you to simply do incremental improvements not to lose the benefits
of the base design.

I am sorry, I am not a designer and not a native English speaker, this makes
it a bit harder to formulate this correctly.

~~~
jsavimbi
> I am not a designer

Then why would you even be talking about Bootstrap, let alone criticizing it
from a design point of view?

You can take any past, present or future "original" concept and build it with
Bootstrap. You do understand that, right? You are not limited to the default
theme. If you're lazy, lack talent or interest then yes, your website will
look pretty much the same as those of your peers, but then you can only blame
yourself, not a CSS framework.

