Recommended single framework?

Stacks
21

Thanks Gary, Great site and the apps look interesting.

22

The Tinrocket site is a site way ahead of it’s time. E.g. the Noted and Seen section looks like a conventional 3 column layout at first glance, that is used on almost every single Stacks web site. Infact, it is a decade ahead of it’s time, 3 column display that collapses to 2 columns with a single column stretching the full width of the upper 2 columns on a second row. The layout is not hindered by a “Frameworks” fixed and often compromised breakpoints. The 3 column layout that collapses to an oversized 1 column layout is one of most frameworks main limitations, IMHO.

2 Likes
23

I love it when people talk so passionately about their work 👍 and, admirable, recommending the client’s product.

24

Do we have a complete list of all available Frameworks?

  • Foundation
  • Foundry
  • Source
  • Platform
  • Blueball
  • UIkit

What else?

25

Since it has been mentioned by others before, would it be fair to include BWD’s SectionsPro (also Blueprint) stacks as they provide most of the function of a framework? Also, 1LD 's Deluxe stacks aim to do the same as a “Framework Without a Library.”

2 Likes
26

There is Rwskinz, not used it and not updated for a while but Will said it was still active. Still for sale.

1 Like
27

As @jamessouttar mentioned, there is also Fluid from 1Ld. Not sure if that’s still available.

Skyler is a true innovator with a keen sense of what looks good. His current catalogue looks very attractive, current and beautifully presented.

2 Likes
28

I agree with the attractiveness of Skylers stacks and I use his G-sheet and Kalendar stack - BUT: he has gone “AWOL” since several months and I just hope that all his stacks are still working a long time further
PS: Sorry for sidetracking this topic again

29

I’m finding this quite helpful. Probably because I started using RW before frameworks and my installation has too many defunct stacks. I’m looking for a cleaner lighter installation with only necessary stacks loaded. @Webdeersign gives a good starter setup.

@jamessouttar mentions non frameworks setups (Foundry 3 | Thoughts? - #59 by jamessouttar), which is also intriguing. My nervousness with that would be how well stacks made by different developers play together. Especially once they get more interactive and complex. Frameworks don’t have the compatibility issue, but then maybe stacks in general don’t anyway, I don’t know.

30

Non Frameworks don’t make any sense today IMHO. They sort of did up until about mid 2020 when the available “Frameworks” were expensive and required may 3rd party stacks to be added to make up for the basic low feature stacks included in the available Frameworks. Eg. the Clearing Gallery, really basic sliders, etc…

When Source was released in Autumn 2020 it changed all that for 2 reasons.

Firstly, the free version gives you way more power than a blank theme with free stacks approach. It even includes CSS Grid!!!

The full Source package costs just £25 (and currently includes the Palette stack), so the need to spend 3 or 4 times that amount, to gain access to a “framework” in Stacks went away. You could now get a modern framework for £25 or less than what many singe stacks cost. Less than the annual subscription for Classic or RW9!

The other significant thing about Source in this context, is that because it doesn’t use jScript or any JS, other than a custom developed micro JS file (created by Tav) for the Navigation, that there is an almost guarantee that all stacks form other vendors will work with Source. However, because Source is so capable there is less need if any to use additional stacks with Source.

So using a blank framework theme with a collection of free stacks doesn’t make sense today on any level.

Technically you could build a site using say Jannis’s free Bootstrap theme and Joe’s free 42 stacks or even the stacks built into Stacks, but then you would need to invest a lot more time and be restricted by the lack of functionality. When the cost of entry to Source is only £25 this makes no sense either. You would be on your own mostly without any “Framework” support with nothing to gain.

There is a very good argument for StacksApp to include something like a Tailwind based framework/theme and a basic but powerful set of inbuilt stacks. Of course that would cause a lot of tears, but to come up with a market competitive web builder App for the next decade something along these lines, is I think is needed.

31

Source is well made and good value, but I‘m not sure it’s particularly relevant to the issue of frameworks. Its selling points in 2023 are Stuart’s great implementation of CSS grid, its use of CSS variables, and its small but very useful utility classes. Otherwise it has more in common with the blank theme plus a few stacks approach than it does with the frameworks (F6, Foundry, UIKit and Platform). The point of the frameworks was that, back in the early 2010s, when everyone was getting excited about responsive and ‘mobile first’ sites, they could manage that responsiveness. Now, with CSS grid, that advantage doesn’t exist any more. And frameworks carry a huge dead-weight of classes that are only of value if you‘re going to use them (which, on RW/Stacks, means using the framework stacks rather than any other). If you have a responsive Grid providing structure to your site, you really don’t need a framework. You need some sort of navigation, some way of resizing images responsively, and a few toolbox items like a slider, a lightbox, an accordion and a JS toggle. Source is a great way to provide the grid, but you could also do it with Elixir’s Flux on a blank theme.

32

While I agree with your overall premise that some frameworks provide a lot of extra CSS that the average website doesn’t use, it does require considerably more than what you listed. Links, buttons, padding, margins, rules, etc. etc. etc.

If I recall properly, and I could be completely wrong, Source only adds in the CSS that is required per the module that you add to your website. If I’m correct, this methodology allows for the convenience of a framework, but not the bloat of opening, or loading the entire CSS library.

Let’s not also forget that the base CSS framework, if it is a well-known framework, like bootstrap and foundation, only has to load once. Cache takes care of the rest. And unless you’ve change the name or modified the list of CSS, the odds are your browser already has a cached.

In my personal experience, all of these frameworks have more to do with enjoying yourself building a website, that is fast, attractive, and serves the customer base. Outside of that, it’s a whole lot of arguing for no reason at all. :-)

1 Like
33

I meant in the sense of a Rapidweaver Framework, i.e. the whole RW thing of requiring a Theme.

34

I doubt that. From my experience the known frameworks compile the whole used framework CSS in each and every page CSS file, so each different page request loads the full framework separately.

35

I’ve performed a simple test: create 2 blank framework pages (of the same framework), and navigate from one to the other, to see which and how much data is loaded from cache, and which amount of data will be loaded each time a new page is opened.

I know this test might not be 100% accurate, but it will give you an estimate how good or bad a framework behaves in real world examples. So beside 100% page speed, you have to look at an overall size of the network traffic for the whole site.

  • Foundry 3: 328 kB (looks like if you use bootstrap icons, add 120 kB)
  • Foundation 6: 224 kB (if you do not use the RW default to consolidate CSS files, almost 0 kB)
  • Source: 15 kB
  • Blankstrap: almost 0 kB

Unfortunately RW (or the stacks integration into RW) doesn’t help with creating a site design. At the end, each page is designed for itself, even if you use the same style settings. But you also see that, if developed with this in mind and correctly configured, you’re able to get fast sites with low network traffic (and not only fast pages).

This test should be re-done not with a blank, but with a comparable content rich page.

3 Likes
36

Do you think frameworks have a greater chance of still being around in a decade than single stacks?

38

Hello

That is actually a good question. We have one developer who has made one single stack that can do everything needed to design a great website. It is called Layouts 2 and is made by 1littledesigner. RapidWeaver Stacks by 1LD | Professional & Free, Responsive & Modern
I am sure in a decade, all this kind of work will be taken over by Artificial Intelligence. Provided of course that politics have not extinguished all life on this planet.

Kind Regards

Kent

39

Foundation 6: 224 kB (if you do not use the RW default to consolidate CSS files, almost 0 kB)

Does this mean that turning off the RW “consolidate CSS files” setting is recommended for Foundation 6?

40

The above numbers are only my observation. Joe has to recommend the correct settings 👍

41

A couple of years ago Stuart did a somewhat similar comparrison for all RW frameworks showing what gets loaded for a blank page.

See A look at how much code each framework adds on to a blank RapidWeaver / Stacks page

The RW “consolidate CSS files” should create one CSS file that contains the seperate CSS files. So it just creates one bigger file that contains all the individual CSS files. There will be no reduction in overall size whether the CSS is all in one file or in smaller files. So in the example in the post above, the “Foundry 3: 328 kB” file may appear to have shrunk to 0Kb, but the consolidated file will have grown by 328Kb.

RW may be leaving the blank unused CSS filenames in place which has no contents. Who knows what RW are doing these days.