Pros of Bulma

• Bulma is a modern, responsive, and feature-rich CSS framework that provides a wide range of pre-built components and utilities.
• The framework has a large and active community, with extensive documentation and a wealth of resources available.
• Bulma's modular design allows for easy customization and integration with other libraries or frameworks.

Cons of Bulma

• Bulma's file size can be larger than Tacit, as it includes a more comprehensive set of features and components.
• The learning curve for Bulma may be steeper than Tacit, as it has a more complex API and a wider range of options to configure.
• Bulma's focus on providing a comprehensive set of features may make it less suitable for projects that require a more minimalist approach.

Code Comparison

Tacit:

body {
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol";
  font-size: 16px;
  line-height: 1.5;
  color: #333;
}

Bulma:

body {
  font-family: BlinkMacSystemFont, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", "Roboto", "Oxygen", "Ubuntu", "Cantarell", "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", "Helvetica Neue", "Helvetica", "Arial", sans-serif;
  font-size: 1rem;
  font-weight: 400;
  line-height: 1.5;
  color: #4a4a4a;
}

Pros of Bootstrap

• Extensive documentation and community support
• Wide range of pre-built components and utilities
• Responsive design out of the box

Cons of Bootstrap

• Larger file size compared to Tacit
• Potential for over-styling and lack of customization
• Dependency on jQuery

Code Comparison

Bootstrap:

.btn {
  display: inline-block;
  font-weight: 400;
  color: #212529;
  text-align: center;
  vertical-align: middle;
  cursor: pointer;
  padding: 0.375rem 0.75rem;
  font-size: 1rem;
  line-height: 1.5;
  border-radius: 0.25rem;
}

Tacit:

button,
input[type="button"],
input[type="submit"] {
  background-color: #eee;
  border: none;
  border-radius: 3px;
  color: #333;
  cursor: pointer;
  display: inline-block;
  font-size: 1em;
  padding: 0.5em 1em;
  text-decoration: none;
}

Pros of Normalize.css

• Normalize.css provides a consistent baseline for styling across different browsers, ensuring a more predictable and reliable user experience.
• It includes a comprehensive set of CSS rules that address common cross-browser inconsistencies, such as font sizes, margins, and default styles.
• Normalize.css is widely adopted and well-maintained, with a large community of contributors and users.

Cons of Normalize.css

• Normalize.css is a larger library compared to Tacit, which may result in a slightly larger file size and increased initial load time for your project.
• The comprehensive nature of Normalize.css may include styles that are not needed for your specific project, leading to potential bloat.

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 */
}

Tacit:

/* Tacit CSS Framework | https://github.com/yegor256/tacit */

body {
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;
  font-size: 16px;
  line-height: 1.5;
  color: #333;
  background-color: #fff;
}

Pros of Tachyons

• Modular Design: Tachyons follows a modular approach, allowing developers to include only the necessary styles, resulting in a smaller file size and faster load times.
• Responsive Design: Tachyons provides a comprehensive set of responsive utility classes, making it easier to create responsive layouts.
• Extensive Documentation: Tachyons has excellent documentation, including detailed explanations of its features and usage examples.

Cons of Tachyons

• Steep Learning Curve: Tachyons uses a unique class naming convention, which can be challenging for developers unfamiliar with the framework.
• Lack of Customization: Tachyons is primarily focused on providing utility classes, which can make it difficult to customize the overall look and feel of a project.
• Dependency on Utility Classes: Tachyons heavily relies on utility classes, which can lead to verbose and less semantic HTML.

Code Comparison

Tachyons:

<div class="flex items-center justify-center h-100">
  <div class="pa4 bg-white shadow-5 br3">
    <h1 class="f2 lh-title">Hello, Tachyons!</h1>
    <p class="f4 lh-copy">This is a simple example using Tachyons.</p>
  </div>
</div>

Tacit:

<div class="center">
  <div class="padding-4 background-white shadow-5 border-radius-3">
    <h1>Hello, Tacit!</h1>
    <p>This is a simple example using Tacit.</p>
  </div>
</div>

Pros of Marx

• More comprehensive styling, including additional elements like buttons and forms
• Offers a wider range of color options and customization
• Includes responsive design features out of the box

Cons of Marx

• Larger file size due to more extensive styling
• May require more overrides for custom designs
• Less focus on minimalism compared to Tacit

Code Comparison

Marx:

body {
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", "Roboto", "Oxygen", "Ubuntu", "Cantarell", "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.6;
  color: #212121;
}

Tacit:

body {
  font-family: sans-serif;
  padding: 2em;
  margin: 0;
}

Marx provides more detailed default styling for the body element, including a more extensive font stack and specific color values. Tacit, on the other hand, keeps it simpler with a basic sans-serif font and minimal padding.

Both projects aim to provide classless CSS frameworks, but Marx offers more extensive styling options and customization, while Tacit focuses on simplicity and minimalism. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the desired level of styling complexity.