"Emotionally Distant Grandchild" , "Good Grandchild", "Nana's #1"
We didn’t put much thought into the pricing plan names to be honest. Will pitch this to my brother, who I built this out with over the last couple months.
Edit: I see you replied to someone else and I cannot tell if the service is actually live (as in my card is going to be charged and photos are going to ship).
We’re definitly going to add other options in time. Right now we’re trying to get the MVP right with 4x6 glossy prints.
There’s a few other services that let you send postcards (expensive) or use apps to let you grab pictures from your phone. The apps tend to have more friction than just sending an MMS and to my knowledge, we’re the only ones that let you add the captions for context for your grandparent.
Would love feedback as you use it more. We’re pretth fast at building stuff and love hearing ideas from our customers.
We have the ability to do matte or glossy already and I just need to get in there an add it as an option. I'll make a note to ping you once that's ready.
The service is live and ready. Your first order will ship in 30 days from now! :)
I just sent your link to my wife who literally sends photo packages of our kid to her mother (who does not live independently and lives vicariously through the life of our kid).
I appreciate that you're not fully up-and-running just yet, but from the looks of it, a little operational scaling may be in your future :-)
Best of luck with the venture.
We're beta testing the app right now with friends & family and have made our first few deliveries already. The response has been great so far from people's grandparents. They love getting the prints in the mail with the captions to tell the story of the photo on them.
We're going to be exploring international shipping soon. What country does the person you want to send photos to live in?
[edit - spelling]
Really it's very easy to build your own database software these days, database servers look an easy solution for beginning your project but they become a burden gradually as your project grows.
Really it's very easy to build your own car these days, pre-made cars look an easy solution for beginning your project but they become a burden gradually as your project grows.
...
All of these cases may be true if you are the 0.01% that wants to do it to learn or have some very special business need that calls for it. For the other 99.99% of the time, it just keeps you from focusing on the stuff you actually need or want to accomplish.
> Really it's very easy to build your own car these days
Wow really? Hold my beer while I go build some car and a database! You learn something new every day!
But for user-facing stuff, designers and PMs want to tweak everything about the interface, and by the time you're done, you've rewritten most of the CSS and you actually spent more effort doing so than had you just written the CSS yourself the first time.
Also, the way you wrote it ends up being a frankenstein-esque collection of style overrides. Zurb foundation is notorious for requiring hyper-specific CSS rules to override their default styles.
Bootstrap has made some progress towards making it more tweakable, but if you're maintaining/customizing an app long-term, you're better off writing your own css for the most part.
Edit: to add to that, the biggest problem that bootstrap solves IMO is a standard grid system, of which there are now many, more composable grid systems to choose from. Grid systems are so basic that its probably fine to pull one from the shelf, but with flexbox its really not that hard to write your own anyway.
Then, bootstrap added what I want to call widgets: small functional units that can easily be reused. Here, as well, browsers have changed dramatically. At the time bootstrap came out, these widgets required browser-specific, inscrutable hacks like negative margins, spacer pixels, and other crimes against htmlanity. Relative to 10 years ago, all of today's browser engines are identical, and CSS has added all these typical use cases.
What remains is more or less a skin changing html's defaults to something that may be prettier, or just not weighed down by the stigma of being the default.
That format seems to work for the #2 company on the Fortune 500. Not that their website is beautiful, but sometimes it simply doesn't even matter.
Bootstrap just works, so I stay with it. I don't even want to learn the new one because BS3 already solves my problems.
If I'm making a content-website (where the "killer app" is the content and not presentation) I use bootstrap - its definitely cheaper than a web designer.
Why should somebody who is technically proficient or even highly skilled in developing on the backend bother with becoming equally skilled enough on the frontend to not "need" these frameworks? Especially when it matters very little.
Browsers are not so consistent as people think. CSS is difficult to get right. UI/UX is hard if you are not a designer. Interactions between DOM, CSS, and JS are hard to test.
With flexbox, media queries and SCSS i dont find any need for a CSS framework anymore. My codebase without Bootstrap (and JQuery) feels so light, flexible and maintainable nowadays.
BUT, bootstrap is still awesome for the design elements.
Layout and such is easy. UI components, forms, etc, take a lot longer.
However, just as frameworks like angular and libraries like react are "componentizing" the front end and replacing general purpose utilities like jQuery, will we see a similar trend with modular css where component styles will replace the need for large css frameworks like bootstrap? Or is modular css merely a complement to whatever sitewide css framework you've chosen?
My favorite part of Bootstrap 4 is actually its newly included CSS reset Reboot [0]. It's built on Normalize, but also provides a set of very compelling improvements like making use of the native font stack, a bunch of very sensible spacing and layout adjustments, and built-in optimizations for touch responsiveness (removing the 300ms delay). I'm definitely going to be trying it out on my next project regardless of whether or not it uses Bootstrap itself.
With that said, I don't mean to rain on the parade, but I've been gradually deviating away from using CSS frameworks for my projects, not because I don't _want_ to use them, but rather because most CSS frameworks don't seem to mix naturally with component-oriented CSS-in-JS libraries like glamorous [1], which is my preferred way to work with styling these days.
If I do include a CSS framework, I end up having to use a mix of custom component-scoped styles and global CSS classes from these frameworks, and those CSS classes may have margins and cascading effects that reach into children. This breaks component-level style isolation, and makes the styling of children much harder to reason about, which defeats much of the purpose of using component-oriented CSS to begin with.
What I really want to do is to import styles from a well designed CSS framework _as a JS module_ (but I'm willing to accept anything that's properly namespaced and isolated, like CSS Modules), and compose them with my own styles without worrying about a polluted global namespace or styles from parents reaching into children/vice versa or fighting with specificity issues.
So far, I haven't found any CSS frameworks that fit the bill, but Tachyons [2] seems like it could be close enough (by emphasizing modular, low specificity, shallowly cascading styles) that I could maybe just run it through a CSS to JS compiler like native-css [3] and import its classes and compose them as I would with any other JS style object. This is something I'm going to experiment with soon enough, but I'd love to hear if others have any thoughts/experiences they'd like to share on using CSS frameworks with component-oriented CSS.
Bootstrap has a nice grid system (although the actual CSS standard is amazing now) and handles basic elements like buttons well. For everything else, Tachyon's component helpers make layouts really easy and fast.
* Lacks all the JS components
* Lifts from Bootstrap for most of the CSS components, sometimes down to the class name
* Makes the mistakes of early Bootstrap, namely heavily nested classes like .card .media:not(:last-child) that are difficult to overwrite and cause great pain when customizing
* Uses antiquated non-extensible syntax/naming conventions for breakpoints, such as "is-desktop" instead of "small, medium, large" etc
* grid system is not flexible, breakpoints are hardcoded and there's no easy way to generate your own grid
* no mixins I can use in Sass instead of using classes in HTML. There are a few helpers but no way to setup columns without HTML classes (like you can in Bootstrap)
* overall lack of easy customization, no theming tool and very limited variables. in BS almost everything can be customized using Sass variables
It simply isn't as mature or battle-tested as Bootstrap. There's a reason it's not 1.0 yet. BS can do everything Bulma can, the reverse is not true.
Bootstrap has more stars (117k) on GitHub than the next 6 CSS frameworks combined: https://github.com/search?o=desc&q=css+framework&s=stars&typ...
FWIW Bulma is third with 20.4k. And I’m legit going to check it out now that, you know, I’ve heard of it ;)
Of course, GitHub stars aren’t everything, and momentum is important, but to say no one cares is objectively wrong. This is a big deal for a large swath of the industry.
