Bootstrap vs Next.js: What are the differences?
Bootstrap belongs to "Front-End Frameworks" category of the tech stack, while Next.js can be primarily classified under "Frameworks (Full Stack)".
Some of the features offered by Bootstrap are:
- Preprocessors: Bootstrap ships with vanilla CSS, but its source code utilizes the two most popular CSS preprocessors, Less and Sass. Quickly get started with precompiled CSS or build on the source.
- One framework, every device: Bootstrap easily and efficiently scales your websites and applications with a single code base, from phones to tablets to desktops with CSS media queries.
- Full of features: With Bootstrap, you get extensive and beautiful documentation for common HTML elements, dozens of custom HTML and CSS components, and awesome jQuery plugins.
On the other hand, Next.js provides the following key features:
- Zero setup. Use the filesystem as an API
- Automatic server rendering and code splitting
"Responsiveness" is the primary reason why developers consider Bootstrap over the competitors, whereas "Automatic server rendering and code splitting" was stated as the key factor in picking Next.js.
Bootstrap and Next.js are both open source tools. It seems that Bootstrap with 134K GitHub stars and 66K forks on GitHub has more adoption than Next.js with 38.7K GitHub stars and 4.69K GitHub forks.
Spotify, Twitter, and Lyft are some of the popular companies that use Bootstrap, whereas Next.js is used by CircleCI, Avocode, and SeatGeek. Bootstrap has a broader approval, being mentioned in 7046 company stacks & 1115 developers stacks; compared to Next.js, which is listed in 82 company stacks and 69 developer stacks.
What is Bootstrap?
What is Next.js?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Next.js?
Sign up to add, upvote and see more consMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
ReactQL is written in TypeScript to provide full types/Intellisense, and pick up hard-to-diagnose goofs that might later show up at runtime. React makes heavy use of Webpack 4 to handle transforming your code to an optimised client-side bundle, and in throws back just enough code needed for the initial render, while seamlessly handling
import statements asynchronously as needed, making the payload your user downloads ultimately much smaller than trying to do it by hand.
React Helmet was chosen to handle
<head> content, because it works universally, making it easy to throw back the correct
<title> and other tags on the initial render, as well as inject new tags for subsequent client-side views.
<style> tags when using #StyledComponents.
React Router handles routing, because it works both on the server and in the client. ReactQL customises it further by capturing non-200 responses on the server, redirecting or throwing back custom 404 pages as needed.
Koa is the web server that handles all incoming HTTP requests, because it's fast (TTFB < 5ms, even after fully rendering React), and its natively #async, making it easy to async/await inside routes and middleware.
I just finished a web app meant for a business that offers training programs for certain professional courses. I chose this stack to test out my skills in graphql and react. I used Node.js , GraphQL , MySQL for the #Backend utilizing Prisma as a database interface for MySQL to provide CRUD APIs and graphql-yoga as a server. For the #frontend I chose React, styled-components for styling, Next.js for routing and SSR and Apollo for data management. I really liked the outcome and I will definitely use this stack in future projects.
When we started thinking about technology options for our own Design System, we wanted to focus on two primary goals
- Build a design system site using design system components - a living prototype
- Explore new ways of working to position our technical capabilities for the future
We have a small team of developers responsible for the initial build so we knew that we couldn’t spend too much time maintaining infrastructure on the Backend. We also wanted freedom to make decisions on the Frontend with the ability to adapt over time.
For this first iteration we decided to use Node.js, React, and Next.js. Content will be managed via headless CMS in prismic.io.
- Next.js so that we can run React serverside without worrying about server code.
- prismic.io so that our content is accessible via API and our frontend is fully independent.
At IT Minds we create customized internal or #B2B web and mobile apps. I have a go to stack that I pitch to our customers consisting of 3 core areas. 1) A data core #backend . 2) A micro #serverless #backend. 3) A user client #frontend.
For the Data Core I create a backend using TypeScript Node.js and with TypeORM connecting to a PostgreSQL Exposing an action based api with Apollo GraphQL
For the micro serverless backend, which purpose is verification for authentication, autorization, logins and the likes. It is created with Next.js api pages. Using MongoDB to store essential information, caching etc.
Finally the frontend is built with React using Next.js , TypeScript and @Apollo. We create the frontend as a PWA and have a AMP landing page by default.
I've been using Django for quite a long time and in my opinion I would never switch from it. My company is currently using Django with REST framework and a part in GraphQL using Graphene. On the frontend we use Next.js and so far everything has been running quite good. I've found limitations but manage to solve it.
As someone mentioned before, if you are comfortable with Django, don't switch. There's no need since with django you can basically achieve anything. Of course this will depend on the project you want to build, but the scalability and flexibility django can offer it's just out of this world. (Don't want to sound like a fan boy haha but it really is).
We have been using it for the past 3 years and have no complaints
Good service with a good price, worth the money.
Leanstack was on Bootstrap 2. Chose this because it is wildly popular, so it’s active, has been used a lot in production, and has a ton of features. Anything you need to do from a UI perspective, there’s likely a plugin for it already part of the library. Haven’t tried the others, but we're happy with BS.
For StackShare, we upgraded to Bootstrap 3. I don’t like that they changed the name of columns, essentially breaking the grid layout for Bootstrap 2 and below, so that was a real pain to update. I hope they don’t do that again. Once we have more bandwidth, we’re totally going to decouple our markup from Bootstrap.
We started with a bootstrap based template and then completely rewrote it due to poor design of the template. Using boostrap properly was a great experience - once you learn it and use it properly, it's simple to use and very good at being responsive and adapting to the various screen view.
I simply bought a "job board" template for the website, which is written using Bootstrap 2. I'm hoping to upgrade the site to Boostrap 3 when I'll have a time.
Я просто купил шаблон для доски вакансий, написанный на Boostrap 2. Когда будет время перепишу все на Bootstrap 3.