We built the same layout (a real client project) in each framework and compared notes. That process really helped us understand the differences.
* Foundation has the best responsive grid support
* Bootstrap is the most expansive UI. For internal tools, that's great. For client sites, we end up fighting to override Bootstrap.
* Skeleton is really light. If you're prototyping with Skeleton, you'll probably need to pair it with jQuery UI or something similar.
FWIW, we're using both Bootstrap and Foundation for current projects.
We didn't know what to expect, in part because we hadn't previously researched the history of each framework. But you're right, the results are inline with each plan.
Could you describe this more? I didn't really see much about it in your blog post.
Bootstrap has a lot of great UI components - form styles, tabs, dropdowns, etc. It looks good, it's consistent, and easy to prototype. But our client work involves highly customized design. In those cases, we don't want the Bootstrap styles, just the functionality.
But overriding Bootstrap styles can be painful. Let's take a form input field. You start by overriding the base style. But you forgot about hover and focus states, so tack those overrides on too. Then add any media query specific overrides. Do the same for any Bootstrap component you used. Finally, make sure your overrides work cross browser.
Building multiple sites with Bootstrap (and likewise Foundation) has definitely made us more aware of costs associated with customizing styles.
In case if anyone missed, recent note from Zurb in HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4588826
Edit: And, Mark's defense http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4590315
I've got a pull request open to Foundation right now to add some vertical rhythm to their typography if anyone is interested.
There are many different [responsive] frameworks and most seem to vary in what they're doing, how they're doing it and to what extent they're providing you a system.
Of course since f3 is almost the same as bootstrap now, I think it's more about personal taste.
I use Bootstrap when
1. the default Bootstrap theme or a third party theme are sufficient
2. I don't need Foundation's better grid system
3. I'm using something other than Ruby (which for me is most of the time)
1. There's a specific problem that their better grid system solves. I haven't come across this yet, but am aware of it for when/if I do.
2. Client wants a highly customized Ruby-based site with no hint of the Bootstrap look
I like stuff with batteries included. Given bootstrap's momentum, it even has a plethora of design templates as well so you won't have a generic bootstrap looking site.
If I have a large family, I wouldn't really reason with myself saying "You know, it was an easy decision to go with a van as a coupé just doesn't really have enough space." Somewhat different purposes though one can see the overlap, which there is.
1) Comparing two similar CSS frameworks is different from comparing two very different classes of automobiles that are visually different enough to figure out in less than a second.
2) Not many non-designers look at, let alone even experiment, with enough CSS frameworks for this to be a simple and trivial choice.
I tried Bootstrap but the semantics are so horrible I couldn't stand using it for more than one project. I love the tools it has but the semantics of the class names are abominable. I've since settled on Foundation as it had the best tools available while maintaining some level of sanity in the class names and semantics.
Then there are various other non-semantic classes: .btn, .pull-left, etc. It seems to me very much a toolkit built with a developer's mind ... in mind.
I like crafting my css by hand, making it easy to read and understand and above all - easy for me to remember so I don't have to crawl through documentation trying to remember if this element is .span4 .span-4 .span_4 or some other permutation I can't remember. I can easily remember .one.column. Its a column and its one.
Also on the Foundation website I can't seem to find examples of their typography, buttons and other UI elements.
Personally I would lean to bootstrap if I wanted everything and the kitchen sink and didn't plan on modifying much about it. For more serious work Foundation provides just that, a good foundation for building on top of. It's far less full featured but much easier to extend and modify (imo).
 - http://www.getskeleton.com
 - https://github.com/rakelley/SCSSkeleton
 - https://github.com/brcooley/SCSSkeleton
Bootstrap provides a UI design decision "out of the box". If you don't have a designer, want to BOOTSTRAP your project, you will want to use bootstrap. It's great.
Foundation to me is more of a base css framework. You don't have (m)any visual styles out of the box (though it does contain certain styles) which is great when you need to create HTML/CSS to match a concept provided to you.
I love foundation and bootstrap, but to me they both offer two very different things.
It's not clear what mixins you need to include to make a site responsive without trial and error.
There's also a few mixins missing that would be useful; for example moving a field label to the left you add the classes "right inline" but there's no mixin to do this so I have to litter my markup with styling class names.
BTW, I myself is a Foundation user, mainly because of its better responsive design.
Can you tell me a little bit about why you prefer Foundation's responsive grid system over Bootstrap's? I just started using Foundation 3 for a personal project, but I picked it basically because it's developed on Sass and I already know and am comfortable with Sass.
Also, I'd love to know if anyone has any experience using Susy grid system on Sass and how it compares to Foundation and Bootstrap grid systems. I found Susy a little more difficult to get started with because their documentation isn't very good and because I don't yet have a good grasp on how to design for a responsive grid.
You probably already know this, just thought I'd share your vent.
I can go into specifics if you give an example of the dependency structure you're trying to define. But the basic case I suppose would just be to shim foundation.min.js to depend on jquery.