Quasar is not a bad choice, it's very professional and the founder is clearly ambitious and invests a lot in improving it. It's fully responsive and suitable for desktop, web and mobile (they even have tools to integrate it with Electron and Cordova, allowing you to build desktop or mobile apps with the same code base).
I'm using Quasar for a web app (with a node/express/FeathersJS backend) and it works well. It supports 2 themes (Material/Android and Apple/iOS) and if you make a mobile app it will automatically select the correct platform theme. (It would be nice IMO if they would supply a third "neutral" or "web" theme, Material and iOS look very 'standard'.)
I've worked with Ionic before (Angular based) and it looks like Quasar is trying to be sort of the Ionic of the Vue world.
What problems did you have with Quasar? Most of the time the complicated part of integrating with a backend API is the authentication (with cookies or tokens and JWT and so on). Maybe you should look at their latest version, it's easy to use and doesn't require any Webpack knowledge (anymore).
But I think Bulma is also nice, it looks clean and fresh, I've evaluated it against Bootstrap and I'm now inclined to go with Bulma for another web app.
Quasar seems really nice yes, but at the moment I was waiting for the new major version and it looked, from a total newbie perspective, a little bit "big". We didn't need a mobile look, just to be responsive.
In the end I choose Buefy though I'm not totally happy because they have no unit tests (and it sometimes breaks for that) and they have no component architecture that allows you to import only the parts you need (which results in a big bundle)
At the moment I'm getting up to speed with Bulma, using React. I'm just importing the CSS (via SASS, which allows me to import only the parts of Bulma which I need) and then I create the React components myself. With Vue that would also be pretty easy, I mean you don't absolutely need a library with the component wrappers, it's pretty easy to build them yourself.
Anyway, yes I like Bulma, in the beginning the docs don't seem as organized as Bootstrap's docs and the terminology isn't always clear, but it has some powerful components (levels, tiles, etc). Have been trying out Bulma and Bootstrap with React, but I decided to go with Bulma.
Quasar is pretty "big" indeed, however with Quasar you can also use only the parts you need, and it's even easier to optimize because it will let Webpack do the "tree shaking" for you. It's pretty advanced, the only thing I like a bit less is that there are just the 2 official themes (Material and iOS) which means every Quasar app tends to look more or less the same.
My take on it is that Quasar is more for "apps" (whether mobile or desktop) and Bulma or Bootstrap are more for "websites" (but there's a big grey zone between the two of course).
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Quasar is not a bad choice, it's very professional and the founder is clearly ambitious and invests a lot in improving it. It's fully responsive and suitable for desktop, web and mobile (they even have tools to integrate it with Electron and Cordova, allowing you to build desktop or mobile apps with the same code base).
I'm using Quasar for a web app (with a node/express/FeathersJS backend) and it works well. It supports 2 themes (Material/Android and Apple/iOS) and if you make a mobile app it will automatically select the correct platform theme. (It would be nice IMO if they would supply a third "neutral" or "web" theme, Material and iOS look very 'standard'.)
I've worked with Ionic before (Angular based) and it looks like Quasar is trying to be sort of the Ionic of the Vue world.
What problems did you have with Quasar? Most of the time the complicated part of integrating with a backend API is the authentication (with cookies or tokens and JWT and so on). Maybe you should look at their latest version, it's easy to use and doesn't require any Webpack knowledge (anymore).
But I think Bulma is also nice, it looks clean and fresh, I've evaluated it against Bootstrap and I'm now inclined to go with Bulma for another web app.
Hi leob, thanks for the comment.
Quasar seems really nice yes, but at the moment I was waiting for the new major version and it looked, from a total newbie perspective, a little bit "big". We didn't need a mobile look, just to be responsive.
In the end I choose Buefy though I'm not totally happy because they have no unit tests (and it sometimes breaks for that) and they have no component architecture that allows you to import only the parts you need (which results in a big bundle)
I would probably lean towards bootstrap-vue.js.org/ if I were to start now.
Bulma by itself is great by the way! I think it's even easier than Bootstrap
I see, Buefy is a "Vue port" of Bulma right?
At the moment I'm getting up to speed with Bulma, using React. I'm just importing the CSS (via SASS, which allows me to import only the parts of Bulma which I need) and then I create the React components myself. With Vue that would also be pretty easy, I mean you don't absolutely need a library with the component wrappers, it's pretty easy to build them yourself.
Anyway, yes I like Bulma, in the beginning the docs don't seem as organized as Bootstrap's docs and the terminology isn't always clear, but it has some powerful components (levels, tiles, etc). Have been trying out Bulma and Bootstrap with React, but I decided to go with Bulma.
Quasar is pretty "big" indeed, however with Quasar you can also use only the parts you need, and it's even easier to optimize because it will let Webpack do the "tree shaking" for you. It's pretty advanced, the only thing I like a bit less is that there are just the 2 official themes (Material and iOS) which means every Quasar app tends to look more or less the same.
My take on it is that Quasar is more for "apps" (whether mobile or desktop) and Bulma or Bootstrap are more for "websites" (but there's a big grey zone between the two of course).