Some of the things in the article I agree with and some I don't. However, as an SEO practitioner it seems like it is 'link bait' or 'courting controversy.' As numerous comments noted, the statements aren't verified with data or experimentation...and as a developer I have to say that concern over antiquated versions of IE isn't very high on my priority list.
And there is no reference of the fact that Bootstrap files are available from CDNs and due to popularity have a healthy chance of being cached...even if they are often slightly bloated. Sorry, but the linked post is, in my opinion, uncompelling. On Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:01:51 AM UTC-4, Phil Doughty wrote: > > Do you know of any other front-end frameworks that are better? > The only closest other I can think of is > Foundation<http://foundation.zurb.com/>from Zurb. > Phil DoughtyWeb Designer / Guitarist Phone: +971 50 8879936 > > > > > On 14 March 2013 14:08, <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > >> Bootstrapping<http://blog.idyllic-software.com/blog/bid/235535/Why-we-don-t-use-Twitter-Bootstrap>has >> a lot of inconveniences. And that is why we seldom abstain ourselves >> from using it. Do you feel the same way? Read the post and share your >> thoughts. >> >> >> http://blog.idyllic-software.com/blog/bid/235535/Why-we-don-t-use-Twitter-Bootstrap >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "twitter-bootstrap" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "twitter-bootstrap" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
