Why is the title of this article alarmingly telling everyone "Please avoid bootstrap!" and then in the 2nd paragraph you have a disclaimer stating it's just your opinion and shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Maybe a better idea would be not to use such a clickbait-y title in the first place, such as "Reasons I dislike Bootstrap", then you wouldn't be obliged to include a disclaimer in the first place.

You were probably afraid of the reactions you might get because deep down you know this isn't the right way to draw attention to yourself

Don't all CSS frameworks have a default look and need to be grokked at to customize? The purpose of Bootstrap is to abstract-out the low-level nitty-gritties of CSS for Devs who are not CSS experts/Front end engineers, but need to deliver someting professional looking. And it is amazingly successful in this space. Thats why the popularity. It may come as a shock to some, but a majority of people working in Enterprise space don't really care about FlexBox/CSS transistions and what not. Bootstrap comes to the rescue here and does its job really well.
Tailwind should not be called a framework at all as it does not abstract out anything.

I agree with a lot of what's being said in the comments tbh.
Bootstrap has it's place and it might not look great out of the box but it's a great base to build from. Not only do you learn some good css tricks but if you adapt and extend the library for your own use, it can be a power tool :)

In the real world, many business cases dictate that the design isn't as important as the functionality.

I've seen many companies use bootstrap for backend portals for internal use only. You don't need a flashy design, it just has to be functional.

Maybe you're a startup with limited funding and time, building a minimal viable product in the hope to gain investment. Bootstrap can be a useful tool to throw together a layout.

The reason I don't use Bootstrap is that it goes against everything semantic. Tailwind, however, is way worse.

Before Bootstrap I had a lot of trouble delivering simple business pages, let alone make them responsive. Bootstrap worked its magic for me, same as codeigniter. And I learned a lot a lot of CSS in the process. These tools allowed me to focus on the application logic instead so I'm very thankful, doesn't matter if they're not fancy.

When you put a title saying "avoid", normally any dev in the world thinking about a backdoor. The way you continue your article then make no connection with the title itself. If you have any concern about the framework then you have to say what concerns you, using a strong word like "avoid" attract misunderstanding and make people like me would less respect to your articles anymore.

Good points and alternatives!

A big reason Bootstrap was invented and adopted was because of the grid.

Now with CSS Grid I think these libraries are less useful. Especially once we have wide subgrid support.

My only comment is: "If you haven't tested or used Bootstrap 4, it's pointless to criticize something that you don't know" Since your article could be invalidated with Bootstrap 5 that is already on going or any future version.

I'm not saying that Bootstrap is perfect, but you have sections like: "Which now it does support Flex since version 4 I believe." If you add the expression: "I believe", it means you didn't do your homework and research, and you are only going to get bad publicity from the most experienced members because you could have started to code very young, but you haven't learned some very important lessons in life like: "Ask for feedback and research before publishing any article."

Hopefully, your next article would be based on facts, checking sources (Google your thoughts doesn't take too much) and not coming with sections that contain: "I believe" since that reduce your credibility significantly, looking forward to your next article.

I agree with almost everything you are saying, but I won't say that everyone should avoid it. I think bootstrap can be really useful to learn UI principles ( Or at least that was my case) Also thank you for posting about Semantic UI, I did't know about that framework.

If you're going to use such an alarming headline then the least that you can do is to present some really strong points to support your opinion.

As a developer in north America, I'm pretty sure I'd pick being able to properly bundle my app with webpack over having the capability for RTL anyday.

Bootstrap has helped me with many projects in years past. But nowadays we have lighter, more modern-looking frameworks to choose from. I prefer Bulma myself (or its cousin Buefy that adapts Bulma to Vue).

For me no framework is the best framework. Usually what you end up using mostly from these is the grid system. With flex and grid in CSS I don't feel the need for a grid system anymore. Usually the components being shipped are not being used 1:1 so you end up customizing/overriding the styles where you can waste just as much time as defining your own styles. In most cases and on big scale projects it's just simply not worth to go the CSS FW route. In case you need a fast UI for some admin interface, than go for it.

Thank you for your article and the suggested frameworks to avoid Bootstrap. I will take a look at them.

In the past, not sure if it changed,I've started avoiding it because it is too heavy (my opinion) and not modular (at the time).

This is the reason why I've chose Bulma at the time. I will take a look at your suggestions as well.

Thank you again. Your article added info to my knowledge.

You are trying to kill a mosquito using a hammer. Using a bike when you should be using a boat and then claiming all boats look the same borders on madness. Tools exist for different purposes. One of the skill that a good developer should possess is the ability to choose the right tool for the job at hand. There are instances where Bootstrap is the perfect tool and instances where its not. This does not mean it should be avoided.