Comparing to Other CSS Frameworks
Over the last 10+ years, there have been many CSS frameworks introduced into the market. The most notable being Bootstrap and lately Bulma. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, they have provided a simpler and more consistent solution to creatively styling HTML layouts. They all solve the problem of letting development move along quickly.
Learning to choose is hard. Learning to choose well is harder. And learning to choose well in a world of unlimited possibilities is harder still, perhaps too hard.
Unfortunately, they also come with technical debt. Most notably, many of these frameworks stray away from HTML5 standards compliance and are, too often, semantically incorrect. These frameworks also do not use the latest changes in CSS3. The use of classes is verbose and the class name terminology can also be non-intuitive sometimes.
Goldilocks-CSS is built using the most up-to-date supported CSS3. Goldilocks-CSS is not backwards compatible with older legacy browsers such as IE. Goldilocks-CSS is positioned to find the balance between comprehensive coverage of the core needs for most designers / developers and sufficient flexibility that includes optional functionality. The designer / developer can choose how much or little of the CSS package they may want to use.
Consequently, Goldilocks-CSS is packaged in three flavours:
- A core package of layout, common elements, and helpers;
- An extended package of core that also includes icons, common elements and components popular with SaaS offerings;
- An extras package with elements and components for unique situations;