If it were a bunch of separate modules you could individually include and use as a template for your own style, you could actually use the parts you need: as it is, I really don't understand the hype.
Well if you don't want to design using a grid then I don't think it really makes sense to use bootstrap as it's main point is the grid system. Poorly made? They seem to have made a lot of improvement and is now pretty close to the Fundation one.
> an excessive (and unnecessary) css reset
imo it misses box-sizing: border-box, the default css values are really bad and a reset of any kind is always welcome.
> lots of default styling you're probably going to replace anyhow
But this is more and more the point of bootstrap, the default styling allows you to focus on the code when you're not a designer.
For me, it helps me build a quick prototype of my projects and avoid designing administration that I will be the only one to see.
Also yes you can use only bits of it if you want, just click Customize.
Version 3 is very modular. You can compile the LESS files yourself and include only what you need.
Also, bootstrap uses normalize now, not reset. This poster should make a little more effort to understand before criticizing. It's obviously a useful framework as many find it very useful. Coding and html css for a complex is not something a developer wants to do unless they have very, very good expertise in front end development. I think bootstrap is great for developers who aren't front end experts, but aren't necessarily bad developers. Maybe specializing in back end work, database, web server side stuff. Using bootstrap frees you up to focus on things that matter more for your app, and you don't have to worry about typography, typeahead, grid systems, etc. It's one of many options that satisfy this need, such as Zurb's Foundation.
As to modularity: I'm happy they're addressing part of the problem, but it's really only part of the problem. Fundamentally, these "modules" are NOT modules: they don't provide and encapsulation layer since you still need to interact with them heavily. (unless you don't want to do any styling at all, ever.)
If you will, bootstrap is a set of templates, and it would work a lot better if they packaged it as such. It's not a library, nor a module: the insides of the abstractions leak out all over the place.
I guess if you don't know css I can imagine it's a godsend: bunt frankly, basic css isn't that hard, and most of boostrap is easy to duplicate with basic css (except perhaps the media queries).
Anyhow, I don't think bootstrap doesn't have good stuff; I think the way it's presented as some kind of "system" is a bad idea. It's doesn't work well as a system. It works well as a basis when someone takes the time to pick and choose what they need.
You can't just take bootstrap AND some other css, use them both together, and expect both to work orthogonally without a lot of care. They will stomp on each others selectors and you'll have a specificity war on your hands. How can you make this work? By actually picking, the bits you need, and doing more than a modular concatenation with whatever other css you need.
Basically: it's a great css example, not an encapsulated, finished module.
When you say: "No one knows that site is bootstrap until I tell them we used it" that tells me you customized it, and that's exactly how it should be. It's not a reusable component, it's a customizable template.
If you have the money and use for a real design, bootstrap is probably not for you. It doesn't really integrates in your own design, it's just a better default.
For anything beyond that you are better off with yui/pure or csswizardry/inuit which offer much better responsive grid systems. Pure has one shortcoming in that you can't specify varying column widths for varying devices (such as 6 columns for desktop and 3 for mobile). Both frameworks are light and offer some decent UI elements with minimal styling so you can extend them.
It's not rocket science, it's HTML and CSS, and you don't need a framework to have uniformity or responsiveness.
Your site could be made up of a bunch of jquery plugins too, and stock library graphics, and is your content rehashed too?
div class=span4 is nothing more than a table-based layout in disguise. Spans and rows are not inherent to divs. You're adding a layer of new rules that doesn't complement the technology you're adding to. You may as well be building with an old fashioned table based layout.
When I view source of some of the flagship bootstrap examples, I see stuff like this... empty divs either side of the logo graphic. I remember doing stuff like this with tables back in the 90s. Spacer gifs inside the empty table cells. But in this case, it's a class.
<div class=span4></div> <div class=span4>logo</div> <div class=span4></div>
People write terrible code in bootstrap, django, backbone, etc. Even within the confines of a framework, man will always find a way to write shit code. It is one of the constants of our universe.
<div class="span4 offset4">logo</div>