How ubiquitous is bootstrap?

[topr8]

I've been using Boostrap for a while on most of my sites.

I've previously always been a lean and mean person.

obviously bootstrap is somewhat bloated ... so i've (or anyone else has) two options, either compile a leaner and meaner version of bootstrap, using only the styles that i use - and serve it from my own server.

or

serve from a well known bootstrap CDN such as bootstrapcdn.com or maxcdn.com etc etc

the cdn's use the full (minimised) file and this is bloated, however if they are so commonly called from websites that there is a high likelyhood that they are already cached then this does't matter.

are there any independant stats on this?

what percentage of people can i expectr to already have the full version of bootstrap already cached in their browser? does anyone know?

[robzilla]

I'm not aware of any such stats. It's difficult because there's no record of browsers loading resources from cache.

Bootstrap itself is pretty popular, but not everyone chooses to use those CDNs, and as far as a browser is concerned, the Bootstrap library hosted on CDN 1 needs to be treated separately from the one hosted on CDN 2, so I imagine it's all pretty fragmented. Like Netflix, to name one high-profile Bootstrap user, I would probably prefer to self-host the library.

[keyplyr]

obviously bootstrap is somewhat bloated ... so i've (or anyone else has) two options, either compile a leaner and meaner version of bootstrap, using only the styles that i use - and serve it from my own server.

Very bloated... that was the first thing I noticed when I started converting to mobile.

I host it all. I spent a week "customizing" it and removing excess, especially CSS.

[NickMNS]

I have used bootstrap extensively. Most recently I have had a love affair with v4. And yes it is bloated, and I like you, am maybe a bit delusional in believing that it will already be cached on the user's computer. While plausible for v3, not likely for v4 that is still in beta. As v4 rolls out it will become more fragmented as Robzilla suggests.

But lately, my enthusiasm has begun to fade. AMP and PWA's have gotten my attention. So all my CSS must now be on the page, forcing me to be lean and clean. And I must say, it is not as bad as I had first thought. When in doubt I steal a few bits and pieces from Bootstrap as needed.

[birdbrain]

... so I've (or anyone else has) two options

Actually, there is a third: stop using it.

Why Bootstrap Is Bad

1. Bootstrap encourages the use of classes in a presentational manner,
   which defeats the reason for keeping HTML and CSS separate.
   
   
2. Bootstrap encourages the use of endless pointless redundant classes
   with pointless divs, resulting in two to three times the HTML as one
   would have without it, only further compounded by one having to write
   as much CSS as one would have without the framework. If it saves one
   anything in CSS, it only does so by making one write sufficiently more
   HTML that it's awash. It's a step sideways on work and a step backwards
   on methodology.
   
   
   
3. Since it's use results in presentational classes and excessive div and
   span elements, it is basically putting presentation in the markup where it
   has absolutely no business. HTML and CSS are separate so one can
   have multiple appearances, slapping a class in for each of those
   possibilities is really nonsensical.
   
   
   
4. The way Bootstrap works is as flawed as the new, allegedly structural,
   tags from HTML 5. It undoes nearly twenty years of progress to the point
   where one might as well go back to writing HTML 3.2 and pretending that
   CSS never even existed. It can only make one's work harder.
   
   
   
5. The HTML should say what things are, not how one wants them to look
   like. By using classes to say what things are going to look like, one
   violates that most basic rule of what HTML is actually for. That's why
   OOCSS and the the frameworks based on that notion are utter rubbish.
   
   
   
6. . If it looks simpler, one falls into the trap of false simplicity. It is as much if
   not more work, resulting in one writing as much if not more code, not
   counting the massive size of the framework against
   it. The only way it could be 'simpler' or 'easier' or 'faster' is if one doesn't
   know enough about HTML or CSS to to make a rational choice about
   using a framework.
   

Source:

HTML, CSS and JavaScript Frameworks - Incompetent Nonsense [cutcodedown.com]

birdbrain

[topr8]

haha, yes birdbrain ... there is merit in that article and others around the web saying much the same thing.

i would say that partly bootstrap is often not deployed well, you don't need to use as many extra divs and suchlike as many, especially, bootstrap templates use ... and also you can employ semantic html tags instead of divs, they work just as well.

the main thing about bootstrap is that it works and you don't have to test it on countless layouts. i have an iphone, samsung android phone, amazon tablet, windows desktop and laptop, that's my limit.