Re:Is the new Jeet.gs the most flexible grid system ever?
by SEMW on Friday April 11, 2014 @11:53AM
(#7573611)
Specifying the width proportion with fractions looks pretty nice. But the paragraph explaining how jeet's better than bootstrap/foundation/etc. because it lets you use sass mixins (instead of inline classes) to separate content from presentation seems a little misleading - it's not like you can't do the same with foundation (jeet: @include column(1/3); foundation: @include grid-column(4);). (I don't use bootstrap, but presumably it has equivalent LESS mixins).
(True, it's not the most popular way to use foundation, but that's cos a lot of people don't care about semantic layout and/or don't want to use a preprocessor).
Re:Is the new Jeet.gs the most flexible grid system ever?
by CorySimmons on Friday April 11, 2014 @01:03PM
(#7574098)
The difference between Jeet and Foundation's grid are two things.
1. Jeet uses actual columns whereas with Foundation you need to nest elements within elements: http://imgur.com/a/OWyOQ
2. @include grid-column(4) isn't as "on-the-fly flexible" as Jeet since you have to define the base number of columns in Foundation whereas in Jeet you could just say @include column(4/12) or column (1/3) or column(33.333333/100), etc. - being able to say in natural language what you want your container to do is pretty powerful stuff.
(True, it's not the most popular way to use foundation, but that's cos a lot of people don't care about semantic layout and/or don't want to use a preprocessor).
1. Jeet uses actual columns whereas with Foundation you need to nest elements within elements: http://imgur.com/a/OWyOQ
2. @include grid-column(4) isn't as "on-the-fly flexible" as Jeet since you have to define the base number of columns in Foundation whereas in Jeet you could just say @include column(4/12) or column (1/3) or column(33.333333/100), etc. - being able to say in natural language what you want your container to do is pretty powerful stuff.