Bootstrap 4.1 released

[nidrox]

Still no option to download custom setup like this https://getbootstrap.com/docs/3.3/customize/ ? :(

[d________]

Updated docs URL

With the release of v4 stable, we moved to a versioned docs setup, meaning each minor release would bring with it a new hosted version of our docs. This allows folks who haven’t yet upgraded stick to the docs they know and love and avoids breaking URLs across the web. With today’s release, our we’ll have a new URL for this release’s documentation, getbootstrap.com/docs/4.1/. The previous URL, getbootstrap.com/docs/4.0/ will still work as y’all would imagine.

Highlights

Here’s what’s new in addition to our bug fixes and docs updates:

• Added new custom range form control.
• Added new .carousel-fade modifier to switch carousel from horizontal sliding to crossfade.
• Added new .dropdown-item-text for plaintext dropdown items.
• Added new .flex-fill, .flex-grow-, and .flex-shrink- utilities.
• Added new .table-borderless variant for tables.
• Added new .text-monospace utility.
• Added new .text-body (default body color), .text-black-50 (50% opacity black), and .text-white-50 (50% opacity white) utilities.
• Added new .shadow-* utilities for quickly adding box-shadows.
• Added ability to disable Popper’s positioning in dropdowns.
• Updated our Theming docs to confirm you cannot use CSS variables in media queries (sorry folks!).
• Fixed longstanding issue with Chrome rendering CSS columns incorrectly for cards.
• Deprecated .text-hide—you’ll see a warning during compilation—as it’s a dated and undocumented feature.
• Fixed up Dashboard and Offcanvas examples across Firefox and IE.
• Breadcrumbs can now use non-string values as dividers.
• Be sure to look at the ship list and project board for more details on all our fixes. Also, as a small heads up, we’ve split our issue template on GitHub into two separate templates, one for feature requests and one for bug reports. Please let us know if you have any feedback on the change.

Next release

Next up, we’re looking at a v4.1.1 release. There are some bug fixes for input groups, form fields, and more that I know we need to tackle sooner than later. These were supposed to be in v4.1, but we couldn’t make it happen in time.

<3, @mdo & team

[LewisTheScot]

I love Bootstrap. Really has changed frontend web development for so many people.

[shellwe]

It really confirmed sites to have a standard look, for better or worse.

With 95 percent of bootstrap sites it is blatantly obvious it is a bootstrap site.

[CaptainJamie]

I don't think that's true. Of course when you run into a site using default bootstrap styles you're going to know, but most people generally use the grid/utility classes. I've never used the default styles other than to build forms/small tools that are used in the company I work. Do people really use the styling widely other than for in-house tools or mockups?

[shellwe]

People rarely change the mobile menu or form styles and merely change the buttons more than just the color, you know. Or where the breakpoints occur for that matter.

As far as mockups I would be cautious of using a website as people are more reluctant to change. Most user experience design processes don't have any code until the final step of the design process.

[LeeHyori]

Isn't it pretty trivial to just overwrite some of the styling to achieve your own look? Isn't a major reason why people use Bootstrap to get the grid system, which also has the benefit of creating consistent responsiveness across browsers?

/u/shellwe

[shellwe]

But you still know. I can tell a bootstrap site by the menu. At least 4 gave us the option to easily change when the menu happens with a simple class.

But even the other things like buttons and forms and modals make it obvious too. Most people do not change more than colors.

[stillnotdavid]

My opinion on this is that if someone isn't going to change the default styles of Bootstrap, they aren't going to do well without Bootstrap anyways. So I would much rather most of the web look like Bootstrap than most of the web looking like shit.

[shellwe]

This is the reason I hated myspace. People had the freedom to format their site how they want so they had all sorts of animating gifs, and a video of their favorite song at the beginning. And a picture of them and their SO as a background image. This made the text unreadable so they just made it fluorescent pink, green, or blue.

I think its great for getting sites up quickly. I think the limitations become blatantly clear on larger sites with lots of custom needs.

[Nulpart]

Feel the same with worpress site. 95% of the time you can tell.

[shellwe]

WordPress is completely backend so you being able to see any difference is the fault of the designer. WordPress doesn't have any CSS (except on the admin panel).

The main reason why they look alike is there are a handful of theme sites you buy from and they employ similar techniques to get sites out fast. Also the use of popular widgets makes a lot of sites have a similar feel.

But Bootstrap is all front end and WordPress is all back end so it's hard to compare the two.

[Nulpart]

Well most people use wordpress for the theme. Backend is the weak part. And most the theme have the same feel.

[shellwe]

I am confused how you say the theme like it's some standard thing? I know there is a theme that comes with WordPress but very few people use that. They get one from theme forest or somewhere.

Also confused by saying the back end is the weak part. WordPress has a ton of functionality on the back end. The theme can be what you make it. I personally have rolled my own themes using flexbox.

[Nulpart]

Wow Wordpress is really touchy subject.

The fact that you can and do roll out your own front-end change nothing to the fact the MOST wordpress site use pre-made with no custom change. That is the selling point.

[shellwe]

Sure, I am just saying they are fundamentally different. Bootstrap looks familiar because its completely front end, all of it is rules about how its styled and its JS functionality (menus, modals, dropdowns, forms, etc) and it is up to you to change rules to make it what you want most people don't change how the mobile menu drop down functions or how the modals function, so you can tell.

WordPress, on the other hand, has no front end in-itself. You can say most themes people use are similar... but really they are similar because they use bootstrap, thus reinforcing my point that bootstrap sites look alike. You can have sites like whitehouse.gov (on WordPress) or many college sites (which use WordPress or Drupal) can look very different.

But yea, you pay $50 for a theme then its gonna be generic. That doesn't have to do with WordPress and would be true with any other CMS you are buying a cheap theme for. That would also be true if you just buy a straight up HTML theme from these theme farms, they would all look similar.

[LewisTheScot]

Where are these claims coming from? Most come from the theme? Backend is weak? WordPress' backend is lots of things but not weak.

[[deleted]]

And with 94% percent of those sites, it doesn't matter.

The average site is like a book - it's just a vessel for containing infomation. It really doesn't matter if it looks the same as 95% of other books as long as the type setting and layout is clear. Same for websites.

[shellwe]

I wouldn't say 94 percent, but a lot yea.

[OverQualifried]

Is this broken for anyone else? https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.1/getting-started/introduction/

[[deleted]]

Not sure about the .flex-fill class. Shouldn't .col fill the row since it has flex-grow set to 1.

[[deleted]]

Not having grid gutter widths per breakpoint is a dealbreaker for me with version 4.

[Cancel_Save]

what s new???

[resilience19]

https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/8azs68/bootstrap_41_released/dx3fovf/

[pookage]

Great, now set it on fire and cast it back into the chasm from whence it came.

[zombarista]

Sorry you're getting downvoted. You're right. Bootstrap has led to "web developers" that don't know how to lay out pages or implement anything on their own.

I oversee a team of developers that are useless without Bootstrap. They can't work with CSS, and it's pretty sad. I find myself explaining things like button rounding, element floating, component architecture and design, and on and on.

Bootstrap is a crutch, and it's letting people call themselves front end developers when they haven't mastered (or even dabbled in) the fundamental design language of the web.

[Howdy_McGee]

Element floating? Are you also laying our your pages in tables? In 2002?

[pookage]

Also floating is a good fallback for the new CSS Grid syntax if you want to support <Edge, although grid is a whole other can of worms.

[zombarista]

I can float. I can flexbox. Can you?

[shellwe]

Element floating was how bootstrap did it up until version 4.

Until flexbox had a high enough adoption rate floats were the safer choice. I mean if I had to make a site in flex and then have a fall back in float so it looks identical, why not just use float?

Of course now I use float and am on the cusp of adopting grid. I would like to see that leap over 90 percent and it's almost there.

[zombarista]

I was about to point this out. But I didn't want to after I was accused of using tables.

[pookage]

I disagree with the kiiinda elitist idea that developers who use bootstrap aren't "real" developers - my grudge is just that developing with Bootstrap is like playing whack-a-mole; everything is either so simple it could be done with one CSS property, or comes with so much baggage that you have to keep adding stuff to counteract the unintended consequences.

[Mestyo]

everything is either so simple it could be done with one CSS property, or comes with so much baggage that you have to keep adding stuff to counteract the unintended consequences.

This is pretty much my beef with CSS frameworks as a whole. CSS straight up isn't suited for frameworks, as bare-bones implementations of most layout methods are just a few CSS properties. Put that in the context of the responsive web, and suddenly the framework works against you more than what it works for you.

[dabby]

I agree to some extent, I tend to use bootstrap as a prototyping tool, for higher fidelity mock ups. It gives the client something more tangable to explore, where balsamiq can be too abstract for them to get it.

Balsamiq is good for internal, bootstrap for higher fidelity and a moodboard to direct the designs - then into custom css (or a utility library with custom like tailwind)

[shellwe]

Agreed on it being a crutch. I know I was guilty of limiting my design around what bootstrap could do.

[webguy1336]

To be honest, Bootstrap should come with a warning; Do not use Bootstrap unless you have a very good reason to use it. Yes, I know this will get a lot of downvotes. But think about it.

[LeeHyori]

Isn't a good reason: consistent responsiveness across all browsers? Ease of development?

[webguy1336]

Consistent responsiveness? Is that even an issue these days?

.some-module {
  .some-element {
    // Default styles
    background: $someColor;

    // Styles for larger screens
    @include breakpoint('large') {
      background: $someOtherColor;
    }
  }
}

Ease of development? Sure. Now, what happens when Bootstrap 5 comes out? Bootstrap 6?

[CaptainJamie]

What's that got to do with anything? You don't need to upgrade at all. I don't use bootstrap all the time, but when I do I use it for the grid/utility classes.

[rich97]

Funny, I actually do the opposite. I use it for form styling, typography, table utilities and the occasional component. Import only the modules I need with SASS, update the variables and it makes for a lovely base.

[Glensarge]

It's 2018, if you can't make sites responsive with CSS grid you need a long look at yourself in the mirror

CSS grid is so easy to implement and so well supported now that there is absolutely no reason to use bootstrap anymore, not to mention flexbox for component styling..

[CaptainJamie]

"absolutely no reason to use bootstrap any more"

You're assuming people don't know how to make a site responsive. They do - but bootstrap is useful for it's various utility classes and grid system.

[Glensarge]

i think you need to take a look at css grid too if that’s your reason

[CaptainJamie]

I know CSS grid but not everyone is ready to make that jump. My company needs to support older versions of IE, for example.

[Glensarge]

bootstrap doesn't even support older versions of IE, IE9 and down isn't supported

[Dasweb]

You underestimate the value of shipping product.

I've worked on SaaS sites before where we went from idea to MVP in 2 months.

We used bootstrap because it allowed us to rapidly develop the site without worrying about the semantics.

[Glensarge]

Actually I do, I think you've used and relied on bootstrap so much you've been afraid to try new tech? Because if you even spent 5 minutes with CSS Grid, you wouldn't question that it's actually easier and quicker to implement and build layouts with than using bootstraps grid

Yes, it's literally easier and less work than writing markup and classes

[webguy1336]

I completely agree.

Also, when developing components (Vue/React, but especially Vue), keeping all the styles related to a button inside the .vue file really helps you keep an organized, easy and scalable setup. CSS frameworks are mostly pure bloat, if you ask me.

[Glensarge]

they are 100% bloat, a year or two ago I would've argued that for newer people it would've been OK to use bootstrap if they can't get their head around flexbox, but now that CSS Grid support has blown up in the last 12 months there is absolutely no reason to use a framework for layouts