pico

Pros of Bulma

• More comprehensive component library with a wider range of pre-built elements
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Modular architecture allowing for easy customization and partial imports

Cons of Bulma

• Larger file size, potentially impacting page load times
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex class naming conventions
• Requires more markup in HTML, which can lead to cluttered code

Code Comparison

Bulma:

<div class="columns">
  <div class="column">
    <div class="card">
      <div class="card-content">
        <p class="title">Card title</p>
        <p class="subtitle">Card subtitle</p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

Pico:

<div class="grid">
  <div>
    <article>
      <header>Card title</header>
      <p>Card subtitle</p>
    </article>
  </div>
</div>

Bulma offers more specific classes for styling, while Pico relies on semantic HTML with minimal classes. Bulma's approach provides more granular control but requires more verbose markup. Pico's minimalist approach results in cleaner HTML but may require additional CSS for complex layouts.

Pros of Tailwind CSS

• Highly customizable with a vast array of utility classes
• Offers a more comprehensive set of design options and components
• Larger community and ecosystem, with more resources and third-party tools

Cons of Tailwind CSS

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive utility-based approach
• Larger file size, potentially impacting initial load times
• Requires more configuration and setup compared to Pico CSS

Code Comparison

Tailwind CSS:

<button class="bg-blue-500 hover:bg-blue-700 text-white font-bold py-2 px-4 rounded">
  Click me
</button>

Pico CSS:

<button>Click me</button>

Summary

Tailwind CSS offers more flexibility and customization options, making it suitable for larger, more complex projects. It has a larger community and ecosystem but comes with a steeper learning curve and requires more setup.

Pico CSS, on the other hand, provides a simpler, more lightweight solution with a focus on semantic HTML and minimal configuration. It's ideal for smaller projects or rapid prototyping where quick setup and ease of use are priorities.

The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired level of customization.

Pros of Bootstrap

• Extensive component library and pre-built templates
• Large community and ecosystem with numerous third-party extensions
• Comprehensive documentation and extensive customization options

Cons of Bootstrap

• Larger file size and potential performance impact
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive features and options
• More opinionated design, which may require additional effort to override

Code Comparison

Bootstrap:

<div class="container">
  <div class="row">
    <div class="col-md-6">Column 1</div>
    <div class="col-md-6">Column 2</div>
  </div>
</div>

Pico:

<div class="container">
  <div class="grid">
    <div>Column 1</div>
    <div>Column 2</div>
  </div>
</div>

Summary

Bootstrap offers a more comprehensive framework with extensive components and customization options, backed by a large community. However, it comes with a larger file size and a steeper learning curve. Pico, on the other hand, provides a lightweight and minimalistic approach, focusing on simplicity and ease of use. The code comparison demonstrates Bootstrap's more explicit class-based grid system versus Pico's simpler grid implementation.

Pros of Milligram

• Smaller file size (2kb gzipped) for faster loading
• More minimalistic design, offering greater flexibility for customization
• Includes a grid system for easier layout management

Cons of Milligram

• Less comprehensive set of pre-styled elements compared to Pico
• Requires more custom CSS for complex designs
• Less frequent updates and maintenance

Code Comparison

Milligram:

.button,
button,
input[type='button'],
input[type='reset'],
input[type='submit'] {
  background-color: #9b4dca;
  border: 0.1rem solid #9b4dca;
  border-radius: .4rem;
  color: #fff;
  cursor: pointer;
  display: inline-block;
  font-size: 1.1rem;
  font-weight: 700;
  height: 3.8rem;
  letter-spacing: .1rem;
  line-height: 3.8rem;
  padding: 0 3.0rem;
  text-align: center;
  text-decoration: none;
  text-transform: uppercase;
  white-space: nowrap;
}

Pico:

[type="button"],
[type="reset"],
[type="submit"],
button {
  --background-color: var(--primary);
  --border-color: var(--primary);
  --color: var(--primary-inverse);
  --box-shadow: var(--button-box-shadow, 0 0 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0));
  padding: var(--form-element-spacing-vertical)
    var(--form-element-spacing-horizontal);
  border: var(--border-width) solid var(--border-color);
  border-radius: var(--border-radius);
  outline: none;
  background-color: var(--background-color);
  box-shadow: var(--box-shadow);
  color: var(--color);
  font-weight: var(--font-weight);
  font-size: 1rem;
  line-height: var(--line-height);
  text-align: center;
  cursor: pointer;
  transition: background-color var(--transition),
    border-color var(--transition), color var(--transition),
    box-shadow var(--transition);
}

Pros of Water.css

• Extremely lightweight (2kb minified and gzipped)
• No classes required, making it ideal for quick prototyping
• Supports dark mode out of the box

Cons of Water.css

• Limited customization options compared to Pico
• Fewer pre-styled components and utilities
• Less active development and community support

Code Comparison

Water.css:

body {
  font-family: system-ui, sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.4;
  max-width: 800px;
  margin: 20px auto;
  padding: 0 10px;
}

Pico:

body {
  font-family: var(--font-family);
  line-height: var(--line-height);
  max-width: var(--grid-max-width);
  margin: 0 auto;
  padding: var(--spacing);
}

Both frameworks aim to provide simple, classless CSS for quick styling. Water.css focuses on extreme minimalism and ease of use, while Pico offers more customization options and a wider range of pre-styled elements. Water.css is better suited for rapid prototyping and simple projects, whereas Pico provides more flexibility for larger, more complex applications that require additional styling options.

Pros of MVP

• Extremely lightweight (only 2KB minified and gzipped)
• Includes basic styling for form elements and buttons
• Simple and easy to understand, with minimal customization options

Cons of MVP

• Limited customization options compared to Pico
• Lacks advanced features like a grid system or utility classes
• Less active development and community support

Code Comparison

MVP:

:root {
  --border-radius: 5px;
  --box-shadow: 2px 2px 10px;
  --color: #118bee;
  --color-accent: #118bee15;
  --color-bg: #fff;
  --color-bg-secondary: #e9e9e9;
}

Pico:

:root {
  --font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", "Roboto", "Ubuntu",
    "Cantarell", "Noto Sans", sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji",
    "Segoe UI Symbol", "Noto Color Emoji";
  --line-height: 1.5;
  --font-weight: 400;
  --font-size: 16px;
  --border-radius: 0.25rem;
}

Both CSS frameworks use CSS custom properties for easy customization, but Pico offers more extensive options and a more comprehensive set of default styles. MVP focuses on simplicity and minimal styling, while Pico provides a more feature-rich foundation for building responsive websites.