Why did Adobe go with Bootstrap not Foundation?

[john_stephanites]

I have found Foundation 6 in my research on using sass. If Adobe had did any research it seems to me I would think that they would have had their eye on adding preprocessors and Scss functionality. One would then assume that Foundation would be the smart choice. After finding Foundation it kinda makes me mad that I spent all this time trying to figure an overcomplicated totally bloated framework that is supported by Adobe. I mean I trusted them to guide me in the right direction of what the real Dev community is using. Obviously I am just learning all this but after learning just enough to be dangerous but not enough to do anything with it I find it hard to believe that Adobe wouldn't have a few more options for frameworks. DW is really aimed at beginners no? Why use the most complicated framework or not have an option for an easier one to start with and then also have a Bootstrap option!

[BenPleysier]

John, I did a lot of research prior to starting to use a frontend framework and my conclusion at the time was that Foundation was the better choice. Foundation was mobile first and used Sass as its source.

Shortly after I started using Foundation, Bootstrap came with version 3 which is mobile first and I realised that the greater part of the programming community supported Bootstrap.. Because of that, support for Bootstrap is greater which in turn makes it an ideal framework for those starting out in the world of web development.

Bootstrap 4 will incorporate a few changes. Flexbox will be an option and the source files will be written in Sass. Just to set your mind at rest, Foundation is no less bloated, the build up of the content for both (and many other grid systems) is similar to

container

     row

          column

or the old way using tables

table

     tr

          td

Dreamweaver gives you the option is to write your own grid system as gets advocated by some contributors to this forum. If you have the time and the skill to do so, you may end up with a system that you understand rather than one that you need to learn. Keep in mind though, that Bootstrap/Foundation is much more than a grid system, it is a complete framework which includes many components used in your projects.

[john_stephanites]

Exactly Ben and I guess it really just comes down to personal opinion. The n33/skel almost framework is very lite and specific which is where these two decide not to preside. I just think as I learn more and look at both BS and Foundation that Foundation, dare I say, just "feels" lighter. If I were to write one I think it would be vey similar to Foundation it just flows better and seems easier to understand "to me". Of course I can't and probably couldn't write something like this for a long long time which is why I am so dependent and I guessed I'm biased now. It's funny to me that as I wrote an acronym for Bootstrap that it turns out to be BS LOL!

[BenPleysier]

I did have to read BS twice before I realised that you meant the non-rude version.

Think of Bootstrap vs Foundation as VHS vs Betamax or Cassette vs 8-Track, in each case the better version lost out. Bootstrap has a larger following so figure it out for yourself.