This is not a criticism of this project specifically, but I feel like when you come out with a framework like this you should have a big "Why you should use Framework XYZ instead of Boostrap" section somewhere, because this is the main question most people will have.
>but I feel like when you come out with a framework like this you should have a big "Why you should use Framework XYZ instead of Boostrap" section somewhere
This is true for any product whatsoever, not just a framework.
Answer this question, and make it the headline of your landing page:
If I am your ideal prospect, why should I say yes to
you rather than any of your competitors?
I think it's fairly obvious as to what the benefit is, considering how many times an app idea that's too "bootstrappy" gets railed on.
This seems like a decent alternative for out of the box design. Once/if this becomes popular then it too could become too standard- but for now, it's very different. That's good.
As far as design is concerned, I think more frameworks in the market is a good thing. The saturation could make the bad designers worse, but it gives good designers just more tools to explore with.
I'm really hoping the irony of linking to a CoffeeScript-generated JavaScript file and using it as an example of properly-written JavaScript was at least part of the joke here.
more like instead of Foundation since it uses Compass+Sass.
I just glanced at it and it seems extremely close to Foundation, it even uses orbit. I like the tooltips and the forms, the documentation is actually better than the Foundation one. I don't particularly like the grid system as it works in ratio (feels like you have to do more math).
What's really hard for new frameworks to overcome is the huge community that Bootstrap has created, checkout the big badass list of Bootstrap resources:
CMIIW, the project you mentioned is not really usable for customized bootstrap, it's all-or-nothing.
Since I want to include (customized) Bootstrap into Compass but don't use fancy stuff (variables etc), I simply rename bootstrap.css to bootstrap.scss and be done with it.
In our current project instead of putting the framework's html/css into our codebase I'm outputting as bare bones html as I can with semantic class names on everything and then mapping those classes to the framework using sass mixins/extends/includes.
To make a RWD site I'm having to rewrite a lot of the framework to be mixins instead of classes so that I can use them in @media as SASS doesn't allow @extend in @media any more[1]. What I'd find really useful would be a framework thats entirely built from mixins/partials and outputs no css until you create your own classes that use them.
> What I'd find really useful would be a framework thats entirely built from mixins/partials and outputs no css until you create your own classes that use them.
the actual sensible question would be "..instead of this", and the answer is clearly "because it's been around much longer, many more people use it already".
Bootstrap is the incumbent so other similar frameworks _must_ explain why they are better, or it's the default choice.
Of course if you actually want to know why you should use a framework like bootstrap then you can just read bootstrap's site.
