Menu icon Foundation
Foundation 6 vs Apps

Now that Foundation for Sites 6 (FS6) has come out. Where does Foundation for Apps (FA) stand? I don't see much difference between FS6 and FA. FA also has integration with angular while FS6 doesn't have such a dependency, making FS6 more versatile. Would be nice to get some views on this.

foundation for sites 6foundation for apps

Now that Foundation for Sites 6 (FS6) has come out. Where does Foundation for Apps (FA) stand? I don't see much difference between FS6 and FA. FA also has integration with angular while FS6 doesn't have such a dependency, making FS6 more versatile. Would be nice to get some views on this.

Aron Patterson over 3 years ago

Keep in mind that having AngularJS is an advantage for Apps - Angular is amazing. And at the same time, Apps doesn't have to pay as much attention to whether or not it works in the different browsers (see: the eternal torment of IE), and thus can leave out excess compatibility coding and updates in favor of using the latest and greatest features that the web has to offer.

Apps is made to be leaner and more focused on its namesake, so it will always be superior to FS6 for app development.

(That isn't to say FS6 isn't amazing.)

James Stone over 3 years ago

I answered a similar question on the forum last week:

http://foundation.zurb.com/forum/posts/36069-what-should-i-use-sites-or-apps

sten over 3 years ago

Let me put it this way. If I am using angular with FS6. What does FA give me that FS6 dosent have, to develop a web application.

James Stone over 3 years ago

Here are the advantages of f4a:

  1. Angular Directives (although there is angular-foundation as a 3rd party add on for sites)
  2. Mobile App style modules
  3. Vertical Flexbox Grid Abstraction (You can still accomplish this with CSS)
  4. A different set of modules aimed towards Apps and Mobile Web Apps
  5. Other small things like a tool that takes YML and builds your ui-router routes automatically

The biggest thing when using angular, if you use a jquery based framework or plugin, often your bindings break when you reflow the dom. That means whenever your template changes at all, you need to reinstantionate foundation. This is typically handled in the link function. This is a a bit of a hack IMO.

Better solutions are f4a and angular-foundation because they have rewritten the js modules as angular directives. This assumes that you are going to actually use some of the js based modules in your project.

If you are not going to use any of the js modules (any many of them are trivial to (re)create in angular) then you can just use the generated sass / css from either project. Just depends on the look you are going for and which solves the majority of your problems and allows you to quickly build your project out.

Erik M over 3 years ago

I wouldn't say Foundation for Apps is less flexible than Foundation 6. I'd just say that it is opinionated. You will be using angular with that framework. It's integration directly with angular is part of its selling point, not to its detriment.

I'd like to jump in and mention that foundation for apps was the core framework used to develop Yeti Launch. Foundation for Apps as mentioned above has a different use case than F6. You could do the same things with F6 + angular, but it would take a lot longer, and you would sacrifice all the wonderful directives offered by Foundation for Apps.

I don't think any angular / css / javascript framework can get you prototyping angular apps faster.

iOS man over 1 year ago

 

Its feel good when someone writes a good quality content. 

Thanks man for this content..

snapchat ++ ios