Pros of Bulma

• Comprehensive CSS framework with pre-built components
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Responsive design out of the box

Cons of Bulma

• Larger file size due to extensive features
• Less flexibility for custom designs
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Bulma (CSS):

.button {
  background-color: #00d1b2;
  border-color: transparent;
  color: #fff;
}

sass-boilerplate (SCSS):

.button {
  @include button-variant($primary-color);
  @include transition(background-color 0.2s ease-in-out);
}

Bulma provides ready-to-use CSS classes, while sass-boilerplate offers a more customizable SCSS structure. Bulma's approach is simpler for quick prototyping, but sass-boilerplate allows for more granular control over styles.

sass-boilerplate is a lightweight Sass architecture boilerplate, focusing on providing a solid foundation for custom styling. It's ideal for developers who want full control over their CSS and prefer writing custom styles.

Bulma, on the other hand, is a complete CSS framework with pre-built components and utilities. It's better suited for rapid development and projects that don't require extensive customization.

Choose sass-boilerplate for flexibility and custom designs, or Bulma for quick development with pre-built components and responsive layouts.

Pros of bootstrap-sass

• Comprehensive framework with a wide range of pre-built components
• Extensive documentation and large community support
• Responsive grid system for easy layout creation

Cons of bootstrap-sass

• Larger file size and potential performance impact
• Less flexibility for custom designs due to opinionated styles
• Steeper learning curve for customization

Code Comparison

bootstrap-sass:

@import "bootstrap";

.custom-component {
  @extend .btn;
  @include button-variant($primary, $primary);
}

sass-boilerplate:

@import "abstracts/variables";
@import "components/button";

.custom-component {
  @include button;
  background-color: $primary-color;
}

The bootstrap-sass example shows how to extend existing components and use mixins, while sass-boilerplate demonstrates a more modular approach with custom variables and mixins.

bootstrap-sass is better suited for rapid prototyping and projects that align with its design philosophy, while sass-boilerplate offers more flexibility for custom designs and smaller file sizes. The choice between them depends on project requirements and personal preferences.

Pros of Foundation

• Comprehensive framework with a wide range of UI components and features
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Responsive grid system for easy layout creation

Cons of Foundation

• Larger file size and potential performance impact
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Less flexibility for custom designs without overriding styles

Code Comparison

sass-boilerplate:

@import 'abstracts/variables';
@import 'abstracts/functions';
@import 'abstracts/mixins';

@import 'base/reset';
@import 'base/typography';

Foundation:

@import 'foundation';

@include foundation-global-styles;
@include foundation-grid;
@include foundation-typography;
@include foundation-button;
@include foundation-forms;

sass-boilerplate focuses on a minimal, modular structure for custom Sass projects, while Foundation provides a full-featured framework with pre-built components. sass-boilerplate offers more flexibility and a lighter footprint, making it suitable for custom designs. Foundation, on the other hand, provides a robust set of tools and components, making it ideal for rapid prototyping and projects that require a comprehensive UI framework out of the box.

Pros of Bourbon

• More comprehensive set of mixins and functions
• Actively maintained with regular updates
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Bourbon

• Larger file size and potential performance impact
• Steeper learning curve due to more features
• May include unnecessary features for smaller projects

Code Comparison

sass-boilerplate:

@mixin on-event($self: false) {
  @if $self {
    &,
    &:hover,
    &:active,
    &:focus {
      @content;
    }
  } @else {
    &:hover,
    &:active,
    &:focus {
      @content;
    }
  }
}

Bourbon:

@mixin position($position: relative, $coordinates: null) {
  @if type-of($position) == list {
    $coordinates: $position;
    $position: relative;
  }

  $coordinates: unpack($coordinates);

  $offsets: (
    top:    nth($coordinates, 1),
    right:  nth($coordinates, 2),
    bottom: nth($coordinates, 3),
    left:   nth($coordinates, 4)
  );

  position: $position;

  @each $offset, $value in $offsets {
    @if is-length($value) {
      #{$offset}: $value;
    }
  }
}

The code comparison shows that Bourbon provides more complex and feature-rich mixins, while sass-boilerplate offers simpler, more focused utilities. Bourbon's approach may be beneficial for larger projects, while sass-boilerplate's simplicity could be preferable for smaller, more streamlined codebases.

Pros of Materialize

• Comprehensive UI framework with pre-built components
• Responsive grid system for easy layout creation
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of Materialize

• Larger file size and potential performance impact
• Less flexibility for custom designs
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Materialize (CSS):

.btn {
  text-decoration: none;
  color: #fff;
  background-color: #26a69a;
  text-align: center;
  letter-spacing: .5px;
  transition: background-color .2s ease-out;
  cursor: pointer;
}

sass-boilerplate (SCSS):

%button {
  display: inline-block;
  padding: 0.5em 1em;
  border: 0;
  border-radius: 0.25em;
  background-color: $primary-color;
  color: white;
  font-size: 1em;
  line-height: 1;
  text-decoration: none;
}

Materialize provides a more opinionated and feature-rich approach with pre-styled components, while sass-boilerplate offers a minimal starting point for custom SCSS development. Materialize is better suited for rapid prototyping and projects that align with its design language, whereas sass-boilerplate is ideal for developers who prefer full control over their styling and architecture.

Pros of sass

• Official Sass implementation, ensuring up-to-date features and compatibility
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Robust codebase with comprehensive test coverage

Cons of sass

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex for beginners
• Focused on core Sass functionality, lacking pre-built architecture
• May require additional setup for project-specific organization

Code Comparison

sass-boilerplate:

@import 'abstracts/variables';
@import 'abstracts/functions';
@import 'abstracts/mixins';

@import 'base/reset';
@import 'base/typography';

sass:

@use 'sass:math';
@use 'sass:color';

$base-color: #c6538c;
$border-dark: rgba($base-color, 0.88);

sass-boilerplate provides a structured architecture for organizing Sass files, while sass focuses on core Sass functionality. sass-boilerplate offers a ready-to-use folder structure and import system, making it easier to start a new project. On the other hand, sass provides the foundation for building custom Sass implementations and offers more flexibility for advanced users.

sass-boilerplate is ideal for developers looking for a quick start with a predefined structure, while sass is better suited for those who need full control over their Sass setup or are building tools and libraries that utilize Sass functionality.