The other BIG change is now having a medium size out of the box.

I'm curious as to why Zepto support was removed. Zurb was pretty big on it for Foundation 3. Smaller size than jQuery, faster load time on mobile, etc. Any ideas why this was scratched?

There were some definite compatibility issues we ran into and while jQuery 2 isn't perfect, it's pretty good, good enough we felt confident switching back from Zepto. Nothing against Zepto, just pragmatism.

Also, no changes to the class and attribute semantics (that I've found yet)!

The only migration that should have to happen at this point is JS fixes.

There is a migration guide detailing all of the changes in JS:

http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/upgrading.html

as well as a migration plugin that will allow you to use the f4 style js and get deprecation warnings via the console:

https://github.com/zurb/foundation-migrate

What do people recommend for functionality similar to Interchange on a Bootstrap 3 site?

> What do people recommend for functionality similar to Interchange on a Bootstrap 3 site?

Why not just use Interchange itself?

It seems to have dependencies on core Foundation Javascript. I don't think it can be used stand-alone.

I've been looking through this, trying to remember why I recently switched to Bootstrap. Was it a widget that was missing? Maybe a date-picker? Foundation doesn't really have date-pickers and such.

Hrm. Oh, right. It was angular-ui, which uses Bootstrap.

Angular integration for any of these projects is a BIG win. Because of that, I'm eagerly awaiting an RC for Angular-Semantic[1], so that I can cut over to Semantic-UI, which is, I think, best of breed as far as these frontend aesthetics go.

[1] - https://github.com/caitp/angular-semantic.

Here’s a datepicker for Foundation.

https://github.com/najlepsiwebdesigner/foundation-datepicker

Angular UI Bootstrap is CSS agnostic - you can use it with Foundation just fine

I'm aware of that, but there are styling differences between Foundation and Bootstrap.

The Angular-UI implementation, while self-contained, is going to have a different .modal() implementation than Foundation's, so there's always going to be relics in the implementation.

Implementing twice the framework for the same functionality seems a sure fire way to induce headaches.

Your advice isn't wrong, and worked great for a good number of months, but requires ignoring the JS components of Foundation altogether, which somewhat negates the benefits of having a big ol' framework in the first place (IMHO).

I find ignoring the JS component to work great for me - I override the UI Bootstrap templates and adapt it to work how I want.

I've recently done a project with Semantic-UI, and there are still a lot of gocha's with specific nestings you'll have to follow and some ui blocks that don't mix wel, but the worst thing for me are the modals. If you have more than one modal, you will get both modals being triggered at some times, sometimes, you'll get the fade in/out animation 2 or 3 times, etc.

It's still a young project, and imho one of the best looking ones, but there are still a lot of quirks to work out.

I've started shying away from Angular a little because it's not very simple to work with existing JQuery and JavaScript components with having to re-wrap everything in directives (and supporting it when the underlining components change) has become a huge-PIA....

I recently made the same decision.