Pros of Bulma

• Bulma is a modern, responsive, and mobile-first CSS framework, while Skeleton is a more traditional, grid-based framework.
• Bulma has a larger and more active community, with more documentation and resources available.
• Bulma provides a wider range of pre-built components and utilities, making it easier to build complex user interfaces.

Cons of Bulma

• Bulma has a larger file size compared to Skeleton, which may impact performance for smaller projects.
• Bulma's syntax and class naming conventions may be less intuitive for developers familiar with other CSS frameworks.
• Bulma may have a steeper learning curve for developers new to CSS frameworks.

Code Comparison

Skeleton:

.container {
  position: relative;
  width: 100%;
  max-width: 960px;
  margin: 0 auto;
  padding: 0 20px;
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

Bulma:

.container {
  flex-grow: 1;
  margin: 0 auto;
  position: relative;
  width: auto;
}

Pros of Bootstrap

• Extensive documentation and community support
• Wide range of pre-built components and utilities
• Responsive design and mobile-first approach

Cons of Bootstrap

• Larger file size compared to Skeleton
• Opinionated design that may not fit all project needs
• Potential for overuse of Bootstrap-specific classes

Code Comparison

Skeleton:

body {
  font-size: 1.5em;
  line-height: 1.6;
  font-weight: 400;
  font-family: "Raleway", "HelveticaNeue", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
  color: #222;
}

Bootstrap:

body {
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, "Noto Sans", sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol", "Noto Color Emoji";
  font-size: 1rem;
  font-weight: 400;
  line-height: 1.5;
  color: #212529;
  text-align: left;
}

Pros of Foundation

• Extensive documentation and community support
• Comprehensive set of UI components and utilities
• Responsive grid system with advanced features

Cons of Foundation

• Larger file size compared to Skeleton
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Potential for over-engineering in simple projects

Code Comparison

Skeleton:

.container {
  position: relative;
  width: 100%;
  max-width: 960px;
  margin: 0 auto;
  padding: 0 20px;
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

Foundation:

.grid-container {
  padding-right: 0.625rem;
  padding-left: 0.625rem;
  max-width: 75rem;
  margin-left: auto;
  margin-right: auto;
}

Pros of Semantic-UI

• Semantic-UI provides a more comprehensive set of UI components and features compared to Skeleton, including a wide range of pre-built elements like buttons, menus, and form controls.
• The Semantic-UI documentation is more extensive and user-friendly, making it easier for developers to get started and find the resources they need.
• Semantic-UI has a larger and more active community, with more third-party plugins and integrations available.

Cons of Semantic-UI

• Semantic-UI is a larger and more complex framework, which can make it more challenging to customize and integrate into certain projects.
• The Semantic-UI codebase is larger than Skeleton, which can result in a larger file size and potentially slower load times for some projects.
• Semantic-UI has a steeper learning curve compared to Skeleton, especially for developers who are new to front-end development.

Code Comparison

Skeleton:

body {
  font-size: 1.5em;
  line-height: 1.6;
  font-weight: 400;
  font-family: "Raleway", "HelveticaNeue", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
  color: #222;
}

Semantic-UI:

body {
  font-family: 'Lato', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
  font-size: 14px;
  line-height: 1.4285em;
  color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87);
}

As you can see, Semantic-UI provides a more detailed and opinionated set of default styles for the body element, while Skeleton takes a more minimalist approach.

Pros of Normalize.css

• Normalize.css provides a consistent baseline for styling across different browsers, ensuring a more predictable and reliable user experience.
• It addresses common cross-browser inconsistencies, such as default margin and padding values, font styles, and form element appearances.
• Normalize.css is a lightweight and well-maintained library, making it a popular choice for web developers.

Cons of Normalize.css

• Normalize.css does not provide any additional styling or layout components, unlike Skeleton, which offers a more comprehensive set of UI elements.
• The library may not be as customizable as Skeleton, as it focuses on normalizing browser defaults rather than providing a complete design framework.

Code Comparison

Normalize.css:

/*! normalize.css v8.0.1 | MIT License | github.com/necolas/normalize.css */

/* Document
   ========================================================================== */

/**
 * 1. Correct the line height in all browsers.
 * 2. Prevent adjustments of font size after orientation changes in iOS.
 */

html {
  line-height: 1.15; /* 1 */
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; /* 2 */
}

Skeleton:

/*
* Skeleton V2.0.4
* Copyright 2014, Dave Gamache
* www.getskeleton.com
* Free to use under the MIT license.
*/

/* Base Styles
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– */
html {
  font-size: 62.5%;
}

body {
  font-size: 1.5em; /* currently ems cause chrome bug misinterpreting rems on body element */
  line-height: 1.6;
  font-weight: 400;
  font-family: "Raleway", "HelveticaNeue", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
  color: #222;
}