Menu
Community /Pin to ProfileBookmark
Generally speaking "adding bootstrap to our code" sounds like trying to integrate it with existing sites; that's really NOT something it was designed to do since it is more meant for the creation of new sites. Unless you're starting over from scratch, it's not really gonna fly.
Now warning, I'm a bit of a heretic on this topic...
IMHO HTML/CSS "frameworks" -- like bootstrap, yui, grid960... Pretty much all of them, are ignorant halfwit bull that defeats the entire POINT of even using HTML/CSS in the first place. They rely on presentational use of classes, which so far as I'm concerned is the antithesis of what HTML and CSS ARE FOR. Bootstrap may be the new media darling but that doesn't make it any better than the nudnik bull that preceded it.
Size alone is absurdly stupid, since uncompressed MINIFIED it's 30% larger than I'd ever allow for an entire page template (that's HTML+CSS+SCRIPTS+IMAGES) not counting content... even served gzipped it's larger than the ENTIRE CSS I'd write for an entire website; and that's before talking about how they've now crapped the fat bloated nonsense known as jQuery into it.... or that oh so wonderful new menu code that's supposed to make menus better on mobile by making them counterintuitive and harder to use.
Just look at their starter template:
http://getbootstrap.com/examples/starter-template/
If the code and total size of that doesn't raise your hackles, you might be in the wrong business. From the IE conditional nonsense to cover up developer ineptitude, to the need for the X-UA nonsense to cover up developer ineptitude, to endless pointless PRESENTATIONAL use of classes and multiple DIV for nothing...
I mean, if you don't know what's wrong with this:
Do the world a favor, back the devil away from the keyboard, and take up something a bit less detail oriented like macramé.
Just pulling up the document size in the web developer toolbar or a waterfall for the 'starter template' should tell you all you need to know about bootcrap. 68k gzipped / 228k uncompressed BEFORE IT EVEN HAS CONTENT OR A REAL LAYOUT?!? If that doesn't send your BS alarm off full bore, you probably shouldn't be making websites.
People call things like bootcrap "easier" -- just like they call LESS "easier", OOCSS "easier", jQuery "easier", html 5 "easier" -- and to be brutally frank:
[img]http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/Montoya-from-Princess-Bride.gif [/img]
Really I think the only reason people think any of these things offer 'benefits' is for people who never learned to do things properly in the first place... You just said it yourself -- you know how to make a responsive layout without it; thanks to that knowledge, it's unlikely you'll EVER be able to work with bootstrap or any other HTML/CSS "framework".
It's like trying to pass the Microsoft A1 Certification if you already understand how networking works; it's physically impossible -- or trying to play Guitar Hero if you know how to play a real instrument, only way to do so is to turn the sound off as it has nothing to do with music.
Once you know how it 'really' works, you cannot grasp how/why people use the bloated nonsense that's more to learn, more code to deploy, results in you writing more code not less, and needlessly/pointlessly overcomplicates something that is at it's core ridiculously simple.
Though again, stuff like bootstrap, less, Sass, oocss and even the train wreck of an alleged specification known as HTML 5 seems to exist to satiate the whims of people who never pulled their heads out of 1997's rump, sleazing out HTML 3.2 and slapping either 4 tranny or 5 lip-service around it; unable or unwilling to practice separation of presentation from content, semantic markup, progressive enhancement, or the dozens of other improvements of the past decade and a half. To the contrary, they seem to want to send coding practices back to the dark ages of the browser wars.
How to apply bootstrap css to our static website to become fully responsive?
I can design responsive website alone, and i can design complex coding based sites also.
But i am not getting how to add bootstrap to our code and make it responsive.
I have gone through bootstrap official website and tutorials, they have clearly explained about how to use all the modules like accordion, sliders and other fluid layouts but it needs more simple explanation i feel so.
This is their official website: [URL=”http://getbootstrap.com/”]http://getbootstrap.com/
Sign in
to post a comment1 Comments(s) ↴
0
@deathshadowMay 09.2014 — #Sounds to me like your common sense is tingling -- some advice, trust it.Generally speaking "adding bootstrap to our code" sounds like trying to integrate it with existing sites; that's really NOT something it was designed to do since it is more meant for the creation of new sites. Unless you're starting over from scratch, it's not really gonna fly.
Now warning, I'm a bit of a heretic on this topic...
IMHO HTML/CSS "frameworks" -- like bootstrap, yui, grid960... Pretty much all of them, are ignorant halfwit bull that defeats the entire POINT of even using HTML/CSS in the first place. They rely on presentational use of classes, which so far as I'm concerned is the antithesis of what HTML and CSS ARE FOR. Bootstrap may be the new media darling but that doesn't make it any better than the nudnik bull that preceded it.
Size alone is absurdly stupid, since uncompressed MINIFIED it's 30% larger than I'd ever allow for an entire page template (that's HTML+CSS+SCRIPTS+IMAGES) not counting content... even served gzipped it's larger than the ENTIRE CSS I'd write for an entire website; and that's before talking about how they've now crapped the fat bloated nonsense known as jQuery into it.... or that oh so wonderful new menu code that's supposed to make menus better on mobile by making them counterintuitive and harder to use.
Just look at their starter template:
If the code and total size of that doesn't raise your hackles, you might be in the wrong business. From the IE conditional nonsense to cover up developer ineptitude, to the need for the X-UA nonsense to cover up developer ineptitude, to endless pointless PRESENTATIONAL use of classes and multiple DIV for nothing...
I mean, if you don't know what's wrong with this:
<div class="navbar navbar-inverse navbar-fixed-top" role="navigation">
<div class="container">
<div class="navbar-header">
<button type="button" class="navbar-toggle" data-toggle="collapse" data-target=".navbar-collapse">Do the world a favor, back the devil away from the keyboard, and take up something a bit less detail oriented like macramé.
Just pulling up the document size in the web developer toolbar or a waterfall for the 'starter template' should tell you all you need to know about bootcrap. 68k gzipped / 228k uncompressed BEFORE IT EVEN HAS CONTENT OR A REAL LAYOUT?!? If that doesn't send your BS alarm off full bore, you probably shouldn't be making websites.
People call things like bootcrap "easier" -- just like they call LESS "easier", OOCSS "easier", jQuery "easier", html 5 "easier" -- and to be brutally frank:
[img]Really I think the only reason people think any of these things offer 'benefits' is for people who never learned to do things properly in the first place... You just said it yourself -- you know how to make a responsive layout without it; thanks to that knowledge, it's unlikely you'll EVER be able to work with bootstrap or any other HTML/CSS "framework".
It's like trying to pass the Microsoft A1 Certification if you already understand how networking works; it's physically impossible -- or trying to play Guitar Hero if you know how to play a real instrument, only way to do so is to turn the sound off as it has nothing to do with music.
Once you know how it 'really' works, you cannot grasp how/why people use the bloated nonsense that's more to learn, more code to deploy, results in you writing more code not less, and needlessly/pointlessly overcomplicates something that is at it's core ridiculously simple.
Though again, stuff like bootstrap, less, Sass, oocss and even the train wreck of an alleged specification known as HTML 5 seems to exist to satiate the whims of people who never pulled their heads out of 1997's rump, sleazing out HTML 3.2 and slapping either 4 tranny or 5 lip-service around it; unable or unwilling to practice separation of presentation from content, semantic markup, progressive enhancement, or the dozens of other improvements of the past decade and a half. To the contrary, they seem to want to send coding practices back to the dark ages of the browser wars.