Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Can someone compare and contrast Boostrap 2.0 with ZURB Foundation?

I've been using Foundation for a new project and am really digging the responsive layout features.

Bootstrap and Zurb are actually quite different, in my opinion.

Both are based on solid resets and (now) great, nestable, responsive grids.

Bootstrap is great for when you're not a designer and you need to get something out there that looks passable. It includes a lot of fully styled elements and have very nice typography and forms out of the box. I found Bootstrap a lifesaver to get something up at http://www.eventsourcehq.com quickly.

Foundation is great to use as the foundation of a website when you have design skills or are working with a designer. Using the grids and the defaults gives you a lot less to think about when getting the rough outline of a website done, but you won't have to start overriding or deleting a bunch of included styles once you want to apply your own. We've used Foundation as the base for our example project template for http://www.webpop.com and plan on making more foundation based templates.

In short:

Bootstrap when you want something styled out of the box. Foundation when you just want to quickly get the structure and layout going and then apply your own styles.

Thanks! That's the impression that I got from reading a similar thread about Bootstrap 1. I opted for Foundation because I want to get something reasonable together for prototyping, but also apply a full design later.

webpop looks awesome by the way.

Zurb and Bootstrap look very similar in many ways. However, bootstrap seems to be growing at a really fast pace and appears to have more elements and javascript plugins than Zurb Foundation.

I think when picking a framework it's important to look at the direction it is taking. In this case Bootstrap is very actively being used in the development community and backed by some really great developers at Twitter.

I did a side-by-side of a simple design when trying to choose one. Bootstrap just has better defaults with things like padding, sizing, and margins. It just looked better.

Now that Bootstrap has responsive design, there's no contest.

I haven't had an experience to experiment with Bootstrap but does it handle nested grids well in fluid (Responsive) layouts? That's one of the things I liked about Foundation is that it handles nested grids well.

Foundation uses <br />s with its form fields (eg. <input><br />, etc), which just makes it annoying to style if you want to style anything ever so slightly out of the box Zurb puts you in.

I use Foundation and haven't had to use any <br/> with forms, nor have I even thought about it.

Ah, this is my error, sorry.

I went back and checked; it was actually the lack of any wrapping container that was bothering me; <label><input><label><input> etc.

(Unless you're very careful with the styling it gets to be a pain in the bum to include non-standard chunks of markup underneath some elements, particularly if you want to arrange the label on the left and everything else on the right.)

While Bootstrap probably lets you bootstrap (hoho) faster, I still would choose (very subjectively) choose foundation. For one, you would wanna distinguish yourself from all those bootstrap-themed MVPs out there.

They both look to accomplish many of the same tasks and probably overlap a lot, and probably differ quite a bit.

Or, you know, read about them.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact