Bulma vs PrimeFaces

Overview

PrimeFaces

Stacks111

Followers190

Votes4

Bulma

Stacks780

Followers855

Votes38

GitHub Stars50.0K

Forks3.9K

Bulma vs PrimeFaces: What are the differences?

Grid System: Bulma uses a modern Flexbox grid system that is based on columns and rows, allowing for more flexibility in layout design. PrimeFaces, on the other hand, uses a traditional CSS Grid layout system that may require more effort to achieve complex designs.
Component Library: PrimeFaces offers a comprehensive library of pre-built UI components, including charts, calendars, and data tables. Bulma, however, focuses more on providing a lightweight set of CSS styles and modifiers, leaving users to create their own components from scratch.
Customization Options: Bulma provides a high level of customization through its extensive set of variables, making it easy to change colors, fonts, and other style properties. PrimeFaces, while customizable to some extent, may have limitations in terms of visual design customization due to its more rigid structure.
JavaScript Integration: PrimeFaces includes built-in JavaScript components and events for interactive user experiences, making it suitable for complex web applications. Bulma, on the other hand, is mainly a CSS framework and does not offer as many advanced JavaScript functionalities out of the box.
Community Support: PrimeFaces has a large community of users and contributors, providing active support through forums, documentation, and updates. Bulma, being a newer framework, may have a smaller community base, resulting in potentially slower responses to issues and a lack of extensive resources.
License: Bulma is an open-source framework released under the MIT license, allowing for free use in both commercial and personal projects. PrimeFaces, however, utilizes the Apache 2.0 license which may have different implications for usage rights and distribution.

In Summary, Bulma and PrimeFaces differ in their grid systems, component libraries, customization options, JavaScript integration, community support, and licenses.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on PrimeFaces, Bulma

Daniel

Frontend Developer at atSistemas

Jun 10, 2020

Needs adviceon

New Relic

Next.js

React

I'm building, from scratch, a webapp. It's going to be a dashboard to check on our apps in New Relic and update the Apdex from the webapp. I have just chosen Next.js as our framework because we use React already, and after going through the tutorial, I just loved the latest changes they have implemented.

But we have to decide on a CSS framework for the UI. I'm partial to Bulma because I love that it's all about CSS (and you can use SCSS from the start), that it's rather lightweight and that it doesn't come with JavaScript clutter. One of the things I hate about Bootstrap is that you depend on jQuery to use the JavaScript part. My boss loves UIkIt, but when I've used it in the past, I didn't like it.

What do you think we should use? Maybe you have another suggestion?

1.07M views1.07M

Comments

Detailed Comparison

PrimeFaces	Bulma
It is a popular open source framework for JavaServer Faces featuring over 100 components, touch optimized mobilekit, client side validation, theme engine and more.	Bulma is a CSS framework based on Flexbox and built with Sass
Touch optimized; Client side validation	-
Statistics
GitHub Stars -	GitHub Stars 50.0K
GitHub Forks -	GitHub Forks 3.9K
Stacks 111	Stacks 780
Followers 190	Followers 855
Votes 4	Votes 38
Pros & Cons
Pros 2 JEE Integration 1 Support Contract available 1 Nice Components Cons 1 JSF 1 Some components have to be bought	Pros 12 Easy setup 6 Community-created themes 6 Easy-to-customize the sass build 5 Responsive 5 Great docs Cons 2 Not yet supporting Vue 3
Integrations
JavaScript Spring Boot	No integrations available

What are some alternatives to PrimeFaces, Bulma?

Bootstrap

Bootstrap is the most popular HTML, CSS, and JS framework for developing responsive, mobile first projects on the web.

Foundation

Foundation is the most advanced responsive front-end framework in the world. You can quickly prototype and build sites or apps that work on any kind of device with Foundation, which includes layout constructs (like a fully responsive grid), elements and best practices.

Semantic UI

Semantic empowers designers and developers by creating a shared vocabulary for UI.

Materialize

A CSS Framework based on material design.

Material Design for Angular

Material Design is a specification for a unified system of visual, motion, and interaction design that adapts across different devices. Our goal is to deliver a lean, lightweight set of AngularJS-native UI elements that implement the material design system for use in Angular SPAs.

Material-UI

Material UI is a library of React UI components that implements Google's Material Design.

Blazor

Blazor is a .NET web framework that runs in any browser. You author Blazor apps using C#/Razor and HTML.

Quasar Framework

Build responsive Single Page Apps, SSR Apps, PWAs, Hybrid Mobile Apps and Electron Apps, all using the same codebase!, powered with Vue.

Nuxt.js

Nuxt.js presets all the configuration needed to make your development of a Vue.js application enjoyable. You can use Nuxt.js for SSR, SPA, Static Generated, PWA and more.

UIkIt

UIkit gives you a comprehensive collection of HTML, CSS, and JS components which is simple to use, easy to customize and extendable.

Related Comparisons

Bulma vs PrimeFaces: What are the differences?

Grid System: Bulma uses a modern Flexbox grid system that is based on columns and rows, allowing for more flexibility in layout design. PrimeFaces, on the other hand, uses a traditional CSS Grid layout system that may require more effort to achieve complex designs.
Component Library: PrimeFaces offers a comprehensive library of pre-built UI components, including charts, calendars, and data tables. Bulma, however, focuses more on providing a lightweight set of CSS styles and modifiers, leaving users to create their own components from scratch.
Customization Options: Bulma provides a high level of customization through its extensive set of variables, making it easy to change colors, fonts, and other style properties. PrimeFaces, while customizable to some extent, may have limitations in terms of visual design customization due to its more rigid structure.
JavaScript Integration: PrimeFaces includes built-in JavaScript components and events for interactive user experiences, making it suitable for complex web applications. Bulma, on the other hand, is mainly a CSS framework and does not offer as many advanced JavaScript functionalities out of the box.
Community Support: PrimeFaces has a large community of users and contributors, providing active support through forums, documentation, and updates. Bulma, being a newer framework, may have a smaller community base, resulting in potentially slower responses to issues and a lack of extensive resources.
License: Bulma is an open-source framework released under the MIT license, allowing for free use in both commercial and personal projects. PrimeFaces, however, utilizes the Apache 2.0 license which may have different implications for usage rights and distribution.

In Summary, Bulma and PrimeFaces differ in their grid systems, component libraries, customization options, JavaScript integration, community support, and licenses.

Bulma vs PrimeFaces

Overview