Pros of Tailwind CSS

• Larger community and ecosystem with extensive documentation
• More flexible and customizable with a utility-first approach
• Better performance optimization with PurgeCSS integration

Cons of Tailwind CSS

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to utility-first CSS
• Can lead to longer class names and potentially cluttered HTML

Code Comparison

Vivid:

.button {
  @include button($primary);
}

Tailwind CSS:

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

Summary

Tailwind CSS offers a more comprehensive and flexible approach to CSS, with a larger community and ecosystem. It provides better performance optimization but may have a steeper learning curve. Vivid, on the other hand, offers a more traditional CSS framework approach with pre-built components and a simpler learning curve. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and personal preferences.

Pros of Bulma

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger community and ecosystem
• Extensive documentation and examples, making it easier to learn and use
• Modular architecture allows for easy customization and smaller file sizes

Cons of Bulma

• Less opinionated design, requiring more effort to create a unique look
• Lacks some advanced components and features found in Vivid
• May require additional JavaScript for certain interactive components

Code Comparison

Bulma:

@import "bulma/sass/utilities/_all"
@import "bulma/sass/base/_all"
@import "bulma/sass/elements/button"
@import "bulma/sass/elements/container"
@import "bulma/sass/elements/title"

Vivid:

@import "vivid/scss/vivid";
@import "vivid/scss/components/button";
@import "vivid/scss/components/container";
@import "vivid/scss/components/typography";

Both frameworks use a modular approach, allowing developers to import only the necessary components. Bulma's import structure is more granular, while Vivid's imports are more component-focused.

Bulma offers a more flexible and customizable foundation, making it suitable for a wide range of projects. Vivid, on the other hand, provides a more opinionated design system with pre-built components, which can be advantageous for rapid development but may require more effort to customize extensively.

Pros of Materialize

• More mature and widely adopted framework with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples available
• Better browser compatibility, including support for older versions

Cons of Materialize

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• Less customizable out-of-the-box compared to Vivid
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to more complex structure

Code Comparison

Materialize:

<div class="row">
  <div class="col s12 m6">
    <div class="card blue-grey darken-1">
      <div class="card-content white-text">
        <span class="card-title">Card Title</span>
        <p>Card content</p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

Vivid:

<div class="vd-card">
  <div class="vd-card-header">Card Title</div>
  <div class="vd-card-body">
    <p>Card content</p>
  </div>
</div>

Both frameworks offer responsive design capabilities, but Materialize uses a more complex grid system with predefined classes, while Vivid opts for a simpler, more straightforward approach to card components.

Pros of Foundation

• More mature and established project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Extensive documentation and learning resources available
• Highly customizable with a modular architecture

Cons of Foundation

• Steeper learning curve due to its comprehensive feature set
• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• More complex setup process compared to simpler alternatives

Code Comparison

Vivid (CSS custom properties):

:root {
  --vvd-color-primary: #007bff;
  --vvd-font-family: 'Arial', sans-serif;
}

Foundation (Sass variables):

$primary-color: #1779ba;
$body-font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;

Both frameworks offer ways to customize styles, but Vivid uses modern CSS custom properties, while Foundation relies on Sass variables. Foundation's approach allows for more complex operations and mixins, but Vivid's method is native to CSS and doesn't require preprocessing.

Foundation provides a more comprehensive set of pre-built components and utilities, making it suitable for larger, more complex projects. Vivid, on the other hand, focuses on simplicity and modern CSS features, which may be preferable for smaller projects or developers who want more control over their styling approach.

Pros of UIkit

• More comprehensive and feature-rich UI framework
• Larger community and better documentation
• Regular updates and active maintenance

Cons of UIkit

• Larger file size and potentially slower load times
• Steeper learning curve due to more components and options
• Less customizable without extensive overrides

Code Comparison

UIkit:

<div class="uk-card uk-card-default">
    <div class="uk-card-header">
        <h3 class="uk-card-title">Title</h3>
    </div>
    <div class="uk-card-body">
        <p>Content</p>
    </div>
</div>

Vivid:

<div class="vvd-card">
    <div class="vvd-card__header">
        <h3 class="vvd-card__title">Title</h3>
    </div>
    <div class="vvd-card__body">
        <p>Content</p>
    </div>
</div>

UIkit offers a more extensive set of pre-built components and utilities, making it suitable for larger projects with diverse UI requirements. However, this comes at the cost of a larger file size and potentially more complex implementation.

Vivid, on the other hand, provides a lighter-weight solution with a focus on simplicity and ease of use. It may be more suitable for smaller projects or those requiring a more minimalist approach to UI design.

Both frameworks use similar class-based structures for their components, but UIkit tends to have more modifier classes and options available out of the box.

Pros of Milligram

• Extremely lightweight (2kb gzipped) compared to Vivid's larger footprint
• Simpler, more minimalist design philosophy
• Better documentation and examples

Cons of Milligram

• Less feature-rich than Vivid
• Fewer pre-built components and utilities
• Limited customization options out of the box

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;
}

Vivid:

.vvd-btn {
  display: inline-flex;
  align-items: center;
  justify-content: center;
  font-weight: 500;
  text-align: center;
  white-space: nowrap;
  vertical-align: middle;
  user-select: none;
  border: 1px solid transparent;
  padding: 0.375rem 0.75rem;
  font-size: 1rem;
  line-height: 1.5;
  border-radius: 0.25rem;
  transition: color 0.15s ease-in-out, background-color 0.15s ease-in-out, border-color 0.15s ease-in-out, box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out;
}