Unless you're using bootstrap components as-in-the-examples in the same context and elements, they work fine. But try using them somewhere, like an input or button in a table cell, or card in a grid, etc - and you'll spend an eternity of "unsetting".

Basically bootstrap is not composeable. It provides not just a set of styles - but also a severely restricted visual design. People quickly run into elements that bootstrap was just not designed to be placed into. That's why there are so many forks/extensions of bootstrap, like bootstrap-admin and so on.

So its good to start with and follow the official style guide. But doing anything more, and the restrictions immediately bubble up. And then you quickly run into an entirely different set of problems on organizing your own CSS, like using SASS, BEM, etc.

Its not a question of OOCSS vs BEM, but more of how tolerant/accomodative the framework is in using it in different elements and contexts. Bootstrap's tolerance is relatively low compared to most other frameworks.

How is Bulma different in that regard?

BS4's modules and components are highly portable and work in pretty much any context. I don't see how offering a theme customization tool results in a "severely restricted visual design", it allows the freedom to make any visual design you want. BS4 is MUCH more than visuals/UI.

> bootstrap is not composeable

Definitely share that pain. Is there a mature framework that solves it ?

It's hard to explain. I've used it for many projects in the past and currently use it at work.

For creating a quick and dirty project it's great. But after a while you find you end up using less and less of bootstrap because moulding it to your requirements becomes a burden. That's prob why you rarely see big complex sites using it.

There's nothing worse than using react or angular and then someone pulls in a library to have a bootstrap control that breaks stuff and doesn't work and is hard to style. Spend hours trying to get it working properly beyond the most basic implementation of the control.

I prefer bulma because it focuses more on the basics and doesn't get in the way. Even after you create stuff you can shape and mould t easily.

I found interesting the architecture of Google material design components, I still didn't try but I wonder if could solve those kind of problems that you mention.

>"bootstrap control that breaks stuff"

I like the idea of adapter more than having a separated framework like react-material design or react-bootrap.

https://material.io/components/web/docs/architecture-overvie...

>That's prob why you rarely see big complex sites using it.

What? Lyft, NASA, FIFA? Is there a list of major sites that are using Bulma? By your appeal to the bandwagon this makes it an inferior framework?

A basic grid and some buttons are nice for a pet site, it doesn't appear to be a robust enough framework for any site of significant size. I guess I could write the CSS and JS for a modal from scratch, or I could just install Bootstrap and never think about it again.