The future: Bootstrap or Foundation? And why?

Should the next version of Zen Cart use a CSS/grid framework?

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS .... and talk about both the storefront template AND the Admin:

a) Bootstrap vs Foundation vs None vs Other (which one?)

b) WHY YOU CHOSE THAT ANSWER

c) Are you answering as a storeowner, or as a programmer?



We're interested in understanding what's best for our community and would like your input on what will help make Zen Cart better for everyone.

a) Bootstrap vs Foundation vs None vs Other (which)
Bootstrap

b) WHY YOU CHOSE THAT ANSWER

1. I don't want huge monitors, netbooks and hundreds of other devices for which foundation cannot match a media query to getting my straight mobile version as a fail safe... That's not safe at all, just fail.
2. Bootstrap has better community support
3. Bootstrap is more consistent, fundamentally sound and well supported across the boards
4. Bootstrap is easily to manipulate and isn't at all the cookie cutter approach that it used to be
5. Bootstrap has SASS
6. Bootstrap has on the fly sizing without artifacts and funkiness
7. Version support is better and faster historically with Bootstrap

Foundation
Last Two Versions of:
Chrome
Firefox
Safari
Opera
Mobile Safari
IE Mobile
IE 9+
Android Browser 2.3+

[I]Bootstrap
Mobile

Chrome - Android and iOS
Firefox - Android
Safari - iOS
Android Browser & WebView - Android

Desktop

Chrome - Mac/Win
Firefox - Mac/Win
IE9+ - Win (IE9 limitations)
Opera - Mac/Win
Safari - Mac

“Unofficially, Bootstrap should look and behave well enough in Chromium and Chrome for Linux, Firefox for Linux, and Internet Explorer 8 and below, though they are not officially supported.” -Bootstrap 4 Docs

8. Foundation is behind the curve in JS updating and development
9. People understand pixels, rems are new and difficult for newer users
10. Since Zen Cart is open source and Bootstrap is substantially more popular talent for designing templates and styling elements will be easier and cheaper to find
11. The text to code ratio is off the hook high on Foundation sites
12. 100k in a minified css file for Bootstrap and 135k for Foundation (plus their respective js files if necessary). Bootstrap is faster
13. MaxCDN vs Yahoo a crap Microsoft offering by Foundation
14. Foundations grid system, while more robust takes a great deal of customization to achieve the look desired
[/I]

c) Are you answering as a storeowner, or as a programmer?
Both

~Melanie

IMO,

Q. Should the next version of Zen Cart use a CSS/grid framework?
A. Absolutely, but the core framework should be separate from the "enabled by default" template.

Q. Bootstrap vs Foundation vs None vs Other (which)?
A. The core should be Zen Cart Specific (Other) and the "enabled by default" template should be based on a framework (really doesn't matter) but should NOT extend to the core.

Q. WHY YOU CHOSE THAT ANSWER?
A. The core needs to be global and consistent so any framework or custom built template can be added without framework dependency. The "enabled by default" template needs to be a simple and attractive out-of-box open shop make money solution for the novice.

Q. Are you answering as a storeowner, or as a programmer?
A. Both

a) Bootstrap vs Foundation vs None vs Other (which)
Other. which ? whatever I want.

b) WHY YOU CHOSE THAT ANSWER
I dont' like to be trap to anything, and web development is changing with a lot of speed. Today it's good, tomorrow who know's.
But it should be prepare for sass and proper html5 and separate the code from styling. A lot of stuff is still inside classes, things that I should not mess for future updates.

c) Are you answering as a storeowner, or as a programmer?
Actually none.

a) Bootstrap vs Foundation vs None vs Other (which one?)
Bootstrap

b) WHY YOU CHOSE THAT ANSWER
1. I bought some modern template for my shop, they using Bootstrap 3
http://themeforest.net/category/ecommerce/zen-cart

2. For a beginner skill programmer like me, I can google and see example from W3School, so I think it is easier for general non-IT Programmer family user for changing as need.

3. On using framework, better small size and quick, also not need too much depend from other etc.

c) Are you answering as a storeowner, or as a programmer?
Mmmmmmmm, Both, but I am a beginner skill programmer (Still hard work learning, and Zen Cart give me many, Thank you all who make this :-) )


P.S.
About mprough's talking CDN, hope ZC's development can consider CHINA, this is a bit special place on Earth, CHINA blcoked many web site, such as Google, so I can't using Goolge reCAPTHCHA this great module (VPN CHINA IP tested), so I think if some framework using CDN, and CHINA can't access is a bad idea. Just my thinking.
And I had tested using jQuery CDN that by Google from CHINA also blocked :-(

Sorry not replying exactly as per the requested format. Just laying down some thoughts.

Responsive Grids are the way to go. For mass market appeal, it has to be Bootstrap over Foundation. In terms of what each does, I don't believe there is any real difference.

If it was a personal decision however, I would would choose yahoo's pure.css myself (http://purecss.io/).
It is light, very non opinionated and will easily fit into a project without trying to take it over as the 800 ton Bootstrap Gorilla will do. It also doesn't depend on JQuery or try to do everything. It just gives you what you need for a responsive page. You can then load JQuery, either v1.x for legacy browser support or v2.x to ride the new wave, and any of the gazillion plugins to do whatever else you want to do.

With specific regard to Bootstrap and Foundation, beyond the selection of which of the two to go with, there is one of which version to go for.

Bootstrap is currently at v3 but are working on v4 which is currently at Alpha 2 stage.
Go for the established v3 or develop Alphaware (ZC 1.6.0) with Alphaware? There are obvious risks but also obvious benefits, not least since this will mean, depending on release timeframes, v1.6.0 would be current when released. I would be tempted to plumb for BS4 given that it is running very well but then, I am not the one people will be running to for support lol.
BS3 uses JQuery 1.x while BS4 requires v2.x.

Foundation is currently at v6.2.
Go for the battle tested but now discarded F5.x or the new, and in reality, general equivalent of BS4 in terms of its real development stage, F6.x? F6.0 and F6.1 were Alphaware, or Betaware at best and F6.2 is Betaware as well or should have maybe been labelled a Release Candidate. They are moving forward and may be okay to ride with ZURB on this.
F5.x uses JQuery 1.x while F6.x requires v2.x.

After all that, I would still go for purecss myself. Nothing much has happened with it for a while but then it isn't trying to throw the kitchen sink. Practically however, and since pure may well be dead and since it is never a good idea to tie a project such as this to a dead dependency, (different issue from a person like me doing one off websites) it has to be considered that Bootstrap is very prevalent and as someone already pointed out, many of the premium stuff around already use this. I am not sure how much hacking they are having to do and it might be better to just go with the flow and facilitate these.

If going for Bootstrap, I would pick BS4 as the I would guess we would be looking at a release for v1.6.0 in 2016 Q4 or 2017 perhaps. If running a store on v1.5.4 for instance, I would be reluctant to upgrade to v1.5.5 if v1.6.0 is just round the corner.
Given that v1.5.5 seems to be a fairly major update despite the minor dot point change, then perhaps v1.6.0 could be even more in depth with suitable time taken and in reality, I would think you must already be considering branding it as v2.0. The change to using a grid framework alone is big enough to warrant this I would have thought. Whatever other stuff had been pencilled in for a v2.0 would probably fit into a v2.1.

Anyway, interesting times for the project and best of luck!

DrByte:

a) Bootstrap vs Foundation vs None vs Other (which one?)

Hard to say. I've only really had experience with Bootstrap and 'none'.

I have mixed feelings about bootstrap - on the one hand it does a lot of things that would normally need to be 'hand crafted' (and then some), bit on the other hand, it still needs just as many 'tweaks' to customise for any given store as any other method.

b) WHY YOU CHOSE THAT ANSWER

'cos I don't have a better answer :-)

c) Are you answering as a storeowner, or as a programmer?

Programmer.

IMO, With only the odd exception, very few store owners would know or care whats going on 'under the hood', so on that basis I see this as a bit of a pointless question.

My question to you is why is this even being considered/discussed (in relation to the ZenCart core code). Surely this is more the realm of those that develop ZenCart templates/themes, so shouldn't/wouldn't this then become a personal choice for the individual developers?

I can understand/appreciate that ZenCart needs a default template (that will be based on one or none of the suggestions), but surely it doesn't go any 'deeper' than that. Or am I missing/overlooking something here?

Cheers
RodG

rbarbour:

IMO,

Q. Should the next version of Zen Cart use a CSS/grid framework?
A. Absolutely, but the core framework should be separate from the "enabled by default" template.

Q. Bootstrap vs Foundation vs None vs Other (which)?
A. The core should be Zen Cart Specific (Other) and the "enabled by default" template should be based on a framework (really doesn't matter) but should NOT extend to the core.

Q. WHY YOU CHOSE THAT ANSWER?
A. The core needs to be global and consistent so any framework or custom built template can be added without framework dependency. The "enabled by default" template needs to be a simple and attractive out-of-box open shop make money solution for the novice.

Q. Are you answering as a storeowner, or as a programmer?
A. Both

I have nothing NEW to offer this discussion because my thoughts mirror this entire statement. I will add this though, I think that Bootstrap or Foundation frameworks should be a CHOICE and perhaps Zen Cart could consider following the path of some other CMS's codebases whereas there are Bootstrap or Foundation plugins which add this functionality versus bundling these frameworks into the codebase.. Now if these "official" plugins were even maintained by Zen Cart this would prevent the clusterf**k of issues that came with plugin and template authors all bundling in conflicting versions of jQuery with their contributions. If the Foundation or Bootstrap plugins were official plugins, then template or plugin authors could then write their Foundation or Bootstrap dependent code based on the official supported modules to ensure they maintain compatibility.

Finally there's this article https://www.gavick.com/blog/mixing-j...isnt-good-idea. While this article is from 2014 and is specific to Bootstrap and Joomla, the reasoning in this article to not bundle in Bootstrap could apply just as easily to any CMS including Zen Cart, or WordPress, or Drupal, or Presta Cart, or (shudder) OsCommerce..

Here's the highlights:

At first glance, it seems like there aren’t any negatives; Bootstrap looks great, it’s easy to use, supports CSS preprocessors like SASS and LESS, provides cross-browser solutions and it’s free; released under the MIT license. But if you take a moment to look closer, you might notice something interesting; no popular CMS uses this kind of frontend development framework in their core, because ultimately it seems that it causes more problems that it fixes.

Bootstrap’s weight

Bootstrap’s minified CSS weighs around 130 KB, which is quite a lot for what is essentially just base elements and grid structure. If you’re actually going to start using Bootstrap in a template, then you’ll need to customize it. By customize, we mean that you’ll need to override styles since it is not possible to modify everything using on LESS variables, which justs adds even more lines to the final CSS code. Then, if you want to be fully compatible with Joomla! you should load the Bootstrap library from the media/jui directory, which means that you will use the full-fat Bootstrap styles even when you don’t need most of them. To add insult to injury, they are loaded on every single page reload, and you’re not even using them!
Bootstrap isn’t just CSS, it’s JavaScript too, which adds an extra 29KB to the overall weight. All in all, you’re looking at a bare minimum of 160 KB to create a template using the default Joomla! Bootstrap library. Now add in your custom styles and override rules, and your CSS may be too heavy to lift, as it were.

Conflicts

Incompatibility between Bootstrap v.2.3.2 and v.3 is not the only conflict that can cause issues. When a template provider is logical and tries to keep their code clean by avoiding the loading of unnecessary CSS, the only viable solution with Bootstrap is to include their own Bootstrap build with the template. However, this in itself can also cause its own problems. First of all, third-party extension developers don’t often check whether Bootstrap is already loaded, which that there code will load the library from the JUI too, resulting in Bootstrap being loaded twice which creates a huge amount of CSS conflicts.


This kind of confusion is prevalent; since Bootstrap isn’t a requirement of Joomla, responsible developers that wish to use it must second-guess every other template or extension developer; “Will they use Bootstrap too?”, “Can I trust them to include it?”, “If not, can I trust them to check it’s not loaded before loading it?”. It becomes a guessing game.


Since Joomla doesn’t force Bootstrap (and they shouldn’t), then the potential for these issues arising increases. But would forcing Bootstrap help at all? A CMS needs to be flexible, and users should be able to choose from the many frameworks available to find one that works for them; taking away that choice limits Joomla and its users.

For the life of me, I do not understand why anyone sane would want to force Bootstrap into a CMS without the option to easily disable it. I agree with those who say Joomla should have simply had a small, tightly defined core of CSS definitions. Those core definitions would be the ones needed for the CORE extensions (i.e., com_content, modules, etc. ), both front and back, as well as for templates to hook into should developers choose to. The CSS would be unique to Joomla, giving Joomla developers true control over the system.

Bootstrap could be packed in the core as an OPTIONAL plugin that could be enabled should a developer choose to. Other CSS/frontend frameworks could similarly be added as per the needs of each project. That way, third-party packages like Bootstrap could truly be optional - meaning that disabling them does not destroy core functionality. If a third-party framework gets updated, then no problem - because it is not core. It becomes a matter of (in)convenience, rather than a monumental problem.

RodG:

My question to you is why is this even being considered/discussed (in relation to the ZenCart core code). Surely this is more the realm of those that develop ZenCart templates/themes, so shouldn't/wouldn't this then become a personal choice for the individual developers?

Actually, the original thought behind the post was more admin-related.
But everyone's replied in the context of the storefront template.


That said, the majority of thoughts shared here related to storefront template are similar to my own opinions.
I'm a bit amazed at the very strong language expressed by so many about wanting the front-end template to be completely unopinionated by any framework. I did ask for opinions ... just surprised at how "passionate" those opinions actually are.


And yet I don't feel we've collected any usable data here with respect to how we integrate tooling for the Admin side. I think we'll just pick a tool we're willing to work with and go from there.

DrByte:

Actually, the original thought behind the post was more admin-related.
But everyone's replied in the context of the storefront template.


That said, the majority of thoughts shared here related to storefront template are similar to my own opinions.
I'm a bit amazed at the very strong language expressed by so many about wanting the front-end template to be completely unopinionated by any framework. I did ask for opinions ... just surprised at how "passionate" those opinions actually are.


And yet I don't feel we've collected any usable data here with respect to how we integrate tooling for the Admin side. I think we'll just pick a tool we're willing to work with and go from there.

Fair enough.. and I admit that my response just followed along with the tide.. :)

• Front-End: See my thoughts above :)
• Admin-Side: I get it and I do see integration of these frameworks into the admin as a separate deal.. As I stated in the Git discussion, no REAL preference here.. I had concerns that the 1.6 codebase was integrated with Foundation, while there are PRs/commits for integrating Bootstrap into v1.5.5 admin. So as I stated in the Git covo if I HAD to make a choice, I vote for Bootstrap.. WHY?? Because it is the most popular of the two frameworks, so that would be my choice for that reason.. (yep sometimes popularity IS a good enough reason.. lol) Truly I think it's MORE important to pick ONE framework for the admin and stick with it.. If the direction is NOW to use Bootstrap, then it needs to be made clear that the v1.6.0 admin will ALSO change to replace Foundation with Bootstrap.

DivaVocals:

I think it's MORE important to pick ONE framework for the admin and stick with it.

Agreed.

Additional feedback is still welcome. Please focus on answering the original posted questions :)

I don't remember seeing ".... and talk about both the storefront template AND the Admin:" originally but could be mistaken.

And when it comes to frameworks most are front end! :smile:

I personally don't think your going to get usable data from any developers for we all have worked with both the major frameworks and both have their pros and cons, I for one think both Foundation and Bootstrap are bloated and overrated.

My original opinion on the storefront template remains, As far as the Admin Side:

a) Bootstrap vs Foundation vs None vs Other (which one?)
For the "ADMIN" side tooling. I would choose Bootstrap

b) WHY YOU CHOSE THAT ANSWER

There isn't a major difference between Foundation or Bootstrap, but I think Bootstrap:

1) Has Better Browser Support.
2) Is Less complicated.
3) Has a larger and more established following and support group.

At the end of the day, the decision lays on you and the development team. I quote " I think we'll just pick a tool we're willing to work with and go from there."

I think whatever tool is chosen, it will be supported by the community.

DrByte:

Should the next version of Zen Cart use a CSS/grid framework?

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS .... and talk about both the storefront template AND the Admin:

a) Bootstrap vs Foundation vs None vs Other (which one?)

b) WHY YOU CHOSE THAT ANSWER

c) Are you answering as a storeowner, or as a programmer?



We're interested in understanding what's best for our community and would like your input on what will help make Zen Cart better for everyone.

DrByte:

Actually, the original thought behind the post was more admin-related.
But everyone's replied in the context of the storefront template.


That said, the majority of thoughts shared here related to storefront template are similar to my own opinions.
I'm a bit amazed at the very strong language expressed by so many about wanting the front-end template to be completely unopinionated by any framework. I did ask for opinions ... just surprised at how "passionate" those opinions actually are.


And yet I don't feel we've collected any usable data here with respect to how we integrate tooling for the Admin side. I think we'll just pick a tool we're willing to work with and go from there.

rbarbour:

I personally don't think your going to get usable data from any developers for we all have worked with both the major frameworks and both have their pros and cons

I expressed similar thoughts in the Git convo..:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I think I may have seen that while I was stalking:lookaroun your posts on GIT :laugh:

DivaVocals:

I expressed similar thoughts in the Git convo..:laugh::laugh::laugh:

rbarbour:

I think I may have seen that while I was stalking:lookaroun your posts on GIT :laugh:

Hey!!!! I stalk you.. not the other way around.. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

DrByte:

Actually, the original thought behind the post was more admin-related.
But everyone's replied in the context of the storefront template.

I'm also guilty of viewing this in the context of the storefront rather than the admin.

DrByte:

I'm a bit amazed at the very strong language
.

Either things have been edited, or you and I have a very different opinion over what constitutes 'strong language'

DrByte:

expressed by so many about wanting the front-end template to be completely unopinionated by any framework. I did ask for opinions ... just surprised at how "passionate" those opinions actually are.

LOL. Surely you jest. This is an Internet forum. Most of us wouldn't even be here if we were passionately opinionated. :-)

Some are just a lot 'nicer' in the way they express those opinions though. I'm not one of those people (as if you didn't know).

DrByte:

And yet I don't feel we've collected any usable data here with respect to how we integrate tooling for the Admin side. I think we'll just pick a tool we're willing to work with and go from there.

OK, so now that I know you are considering primarily the admin side of things, my opinion here is use whatever the Zencart Team deems to be the most suitable. It is you guys that will be needing to maintain and update this. Those of us that do code for the admin side of things tend to be more concerned/involved with functionality rather than how things 'look', and realistically, how many of us even change the 'look' (other than perhaps a few color changes) anyway? It isn't as though even the current system has much in the alternative layouts/templates/themes that have been created by 3rd party developers, so I can't really see this changing in any way regardless what framework you settle upon.

To take this a little further, I for one aren't even interested in having a 'responsive' admin section. I do consider this to be quite essential for the store front - but for the admin side of things, I only use a desktop machine anyway. I realise I could be the exception in this regard (but I don't think so), but even with a fully responsive template trying to do adminny stuff on a mobile device is generally more of a pain than an asset.

I'm not basing these views/opinions solely on my experience with ZenCart either. I have found that regardless of the eCommerce system being used, *most* people stick with however the admin section looks 'out of the box', so again, I state that the ZenTeam should use what works for them, rather than seeking preferences from us, because this latter approach is always going to piff someone off because you didn't go with their preference. IOW, just do it. We will work with whatever you guys decide - just like we always have done. :-)

There are just some things where asking for opinions is the same as asking for trouble. :-)

Cheers
Rod

Bootstrap and Foundation are both popular grid systems, however I believe the developer should be given a choice.

Bootstrap at least has a look and feel about it.... you can 'mostly' tell when a site is designed in Bootstrap. They are well developed, BUT can come with a price in that they take large amounts of Memory, particularly if using alot of JQUERY alongside them. I've looked at 'some' sites that use either of these on older machines using older operating systems and they can sometimes take much longer to load, when compared to another well developed site that doesn't use a framework on the same machine and OS. You could of course argue, 'well the end user shouldn't be using an older machine with an older OS or browser'. Reality needs to kick in here, people do, and thats a fact, and you can say what you like, but arrogance should not overtake reality here.

One of the big things for Google is page size. A smaller lightweight page size that loads faster and takes up less memory will be given priority in search ranks when compared to a cumbersome over developed website designed with a memory hungry grid system.

I think the developer should be given a choice. Personally I don't use either, I see developers using these all the time, however what happens when the next big thing comes along and the code becomes outdated? You could argue that it creates more work for the developer, which is good, but surely its better to work on a much more scaled down system. If you know what you are doing, then its not difficult to work on a simpler system with your own code. You also have the freedom to design your grid as you please on a blank canvas. This doesn't mean re-writing the book, but it does give you more control over how you want your code to work in combination with other core features of whatever web software you are using.

The beauty of Zen Cart is that it is simple from a Developers point of view. Maybe not so much from a 'Non-Developer's' point of view, but then there are other ecommerce platforms that aren't so simple too. I can think of one major name that is a Zen Cart Competitor starting with an 'M', however I hear people saying that it is cumbersome and slow, and also takes up heaps of memory on a server. Zen Cart does not take up alot of memory to run, which is good as it allows sites to load quicker, even when they become large. So I think it would be far better to work on how Zen Cart will work with the next big coding changes, taking advantage of HTML 5 elements and CSS 3 rather than thinking about which grid system should be included. For example, it would be good to see Zen Cart take advantage of video within product pages using HTML 5 controlled totally from the admin. I'm fairly sure this would be simple enough to include as part of the Zen Cart software build. That digresses a little but I just think it's better to concentrate on moving things forward in other ways.

I came across this system which could be useful as its a scaled down grid system http://thisisdallas.github.io/Simple-Grid/. Of course this is just an example, and perhaps the Zen Cart Development team could use this as a starting point to creating a much simpler grid framework to include with newer releases of Zen Cart.

However I still go back to having a choice. There are many ways to design a website, not all of us want to use a pre-developed grid, and it is easy to follow the crowd like sheep by using 'Bootstrap' or 'Foundation'. Who knows, Google may come along one day and say, 'we are allowing sites that DO NOT use 'Bootstrap' or 'Foundation' to take priority in search ranks over sites that use 'Bootstrap' or 'Foundation'. Imagine if they did and all those sites developed this way fell apart in search ranks. I would never say 'never', Google have a tendency to do things unannounced and be controversial. For example they may do this if they see sites using these frameworks as memory hungry.

So to end, I'd suggest a switch in the admin system, don't just expect people to use either of these systems as they aren't always the best. Leave the choice with the developer. Perhaps give the developer a system similar to wordpress too which allows development using whichever template/grid system they please with an uploader from the admin or allowing people to search for systems from the Zen Cart website. I'd suggest from a development point of view, this could be better for Zen Cart as a whole as it would allow people to develop full systems which could easily be installed too.

RodG:

To take this a little further, I for one aren't even interested in having a 'responsive' admin section. I do consider this to be quite essential for the store front - but for the admin side of things, I only use a desktop machine anyway. I realise I could be the exception in this regard (but I don't think so), but even with a fully responsive template trying to do adminny stuff on a mobile device is generally more of a pain than an asset.

I believe that is the case for 99.99% and why most people sort of gravitated to the front end view when originally answering. I think what people answered applied largely equally to both back and front ends.

A grid is a nice to have for the back end and these days, critical for the front end so when the good Doc asked, most answered from a view point of where it is really important.

To Dr B,
I don't really think most will care about the grid in the back end as such. Of course it is good to see it done for the rare cases they have to use a mobile device to access the back end, but a few questions come up.

Why even consider Bootstrap when Foundation is already bundled (in the installation). Whatever Bootstrap was used for in the PR could have been done with the already bundled Foundation. Okay, Foundation is only used as a one off in the installation but why not just keep things simple and recycle it in the admin and leave considerations for Bootstrap for another version.

Having had a closer look at things, in your shoes, I will stick with Foundation and Foundation 5 for that matter for this release.
It is already in place and why bring in something else. Furthermore, the current use of Bootstrap is of minor cosmetic value and even within the current scope needs to be significantly expanded for it to be worthwhile. It Basically only adds weight without much gain in terms of functionality and I would have rejected the PR myself.

Although I suppose the ZC Dev Team may have been thinking of building on this for future releases. In my view overall, I don't think the current Bootstrap implementation really brings much to the table and should be reversed IMO. As said, can be looked at again for v160 or later even. I would recommend sticking with F5.

As an aside, while you have asked about the back end, as said, people really only care that much on the front end in terms of the possibilities of Bootstrap. So once done for the back end, it stands to reason that it would be quite nice to have this extended to the default templates on the front end to have a nice out of the box experience as long as it is not made a requirement of everything done with the application.

Many people will simply edit/amend the default template and a nice bootstrap based one would be a good place to start. However, this should just not be hard baked into things in such a way that the option to do something else is taken away that's all. However, from the clarification post by Dr. B, this is not on the radar so Would just stick with what is already there as said.

Nick1973:

Bootstrap and Foundation are both popular grid systems, ...

I disagree with almost everything written above. I do largely concur with the light standalone grid thing but the devs have gone down one path and no need to reinvent the wheel with some obscure tool.

Just to answer you Dayo, I probably wasn't clear enough in my response. I was talking about giving people a choice, not so much abandoning either Bootstrap or Foundation. As I said I don't use either, and don't really have to re-invent the wheel as a result. I probably should, but then I develop mostly in zen cart or other types of 'base' template systems that work equally as good, if not better. If you know what you are doing then it is easy enough to write a simplistic grid style template from scratch yourself without relying on pre-written code. Which doesn't really require a re-invention of the wheel providing things are kept simple. But hey, thats my view.