Classic Front end Libraries for React

Although new frontend technologies emerge daily, it's essential to revisit some classic frontend libraries, understanding their benefits and disadvantages. These libraries have set standards in the web industry and continue to be widely used today. The order below doesn't indicate superiority but is simply random.

1. Bootstrap 5

Bootstrap is a comprehensive frontend toolkit offering customizable SASS and prebuilt components.

Advantages

• Ease of Use: Simple to integrate and maintain. ✅
• Dark/Light Modes: Built-in support. ✅
• Custom Coloring: Utilizes SCSS or custom CSS class names. ✅
• Large Component Library: A wide range of components available. ✅
• Predefined Colors: Includes warning, info, and success classes. ✅
• Low Learning Curve: Easy to pick up. ✅
• Small Size: Version 5.3.3 is 59.1 kB (minified) and 16.0 kB (GZIP). ✅
• Design Tool Integration: Compatible with Figma and Adobe XD using public libraries. ✅

Disadvantages

• Overuse: Commonly used, leading to similar-looking websites. ❌
• Bloated Designs: Potential for heavy, non-optimized design. ❌
• Limited Customizations: Flexibility is somewhat restricted. ❌
• JavaScript Dependency: Includes JavaScript components (e.g., bootstrap.bundle.js) but lacks jQuery by default, though it can be added. ❌

2. TailwindCSS

TailwindCSS is known for its utility-first approach, offering extensive customization.

Advantages

• Dark/Light Modes: Supported. ✅
• Ease of Use: Simple to maintain. ✅
• Customizable: Using CSS or SCSS. ✅
• Team-Friendly: Suitable for both large and small projects. ✅
• Easy Updates: Regularly updated with easy integration. ✅
• Responsive Customizations: Uses classes like sm, md, and lg. ✅
• Unique Designs: Allows for creative, custom designs. ✅

Disadvantages

• Bloated Code: Can result in larger file sizes. ❌
• Complexity: Harder to use for intricate designs. ❌
• Limited Customizations: Requires custom JS/CSS for interactive elements. ❌

3. Bulma

Bulma differs from Bootstrap and Tailwind in that it requires no CSS knowledge, yet offers similar utility.

Advantages

• Beginner-Friendly: Easy to start with. ✅
• Predefined Colors: Similar to Bootstrap but uses syntax like is-primary, is-link, etc. ✅
• Unique Appearance: Stands out compared to Bootstrap. ✅

Disadvantages

• Larger Size: Minified version is 180 KB; GZIP is 24 KB. ❌
• No Built-in JavaScript: Lacks JavaScript or jQuery for components. ❌

4. Ant Design

Ant Design is highly popular, especially in React projects, and is used by companies like Tailwind.

Advantages

• Flexibility: Highly adaptable. ✅
• Modern & Elegant: Offers a look similar to Material Design. ✅
• Minimalistic Style: Utilizes CSS-in-JS for dynamic theming and better performance. ✅
• Mobile Friendly: Includes mobile-specific components. ✅
• Design Tool: Comes with its own design tool called "Kitchen." ✅

Disadvantages

• Framework-Specific: Officially supports only React, Vue, and Angular. ❌
• Creativity Limitation: Prioritizes enterprise-level projects over creative freedom. ❌

5. Material UI

Material UI is known for its aesthetically pleasing design, ideal for enterprise applications.

Advantages

• Visually Appealing: Offers a clean, modern design. ✅
• Premade Templates: Comes with ready-to-use templates. ✅
• Design Tool Integration: Compatible with Figma and Adobe XD. ✅

Disadvantages

• Code Bloat: Customizations often lead to bloated code. ❌

Conclusion

All these libraries are visually appealing and robust, each with its own use cases. For large projects requiring frequent updates, Bootstrap and TailwindCSS are excellent choices. Ant Design and Material UI are more suited for enterprise applications, while Bulma offers a unique, aesthetic alternative. Ultimately, the best library depends on your specific needs. Personally, I've used all the libraries mentioned for various production websites, and each has its strengths.

References

• Bootstrap 5
• TailwindCSS
• Bulma
• Ant Design
• Material UI