Analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the framework

Advantages of Frameworks

HTML frameworks provide a fast way to build web page structures. Developers can reduce repetitive code and significantly improve efficiency using predefined templates and components. Take Bootstrap as an example—its grid system enables responsive layouts with simple class declarations:

<div class="container">
  <div class="row">
    <div class="col-md-6">Left column content</div>
    <div class="col-md-6">Right column content</div>
  </div>
</div>

Cross-browser compatibility is a core value of frameworks. Mainstream frameworks like Foundation automatically handle rendering differences across browsers, including flexbox compatibility for IE11. Form controls achieve consistent behavior across devices through standardized CSS:

<input type="text" class="form-control" placeholder="Uniformly styled input">

The component-based development model offers significant advantages. Material-UI provides a pre-built component library with over 40 tested interactive components that developers can directly use:

<button class="mdc-button mdc-button--raised">
  Button with ripple effect
</button>

Performance optimization mechanisms are an implicit benefit of frameworks. Modern frameworks like Tailwind CSS use tools like PurgeCSS to automatically remove unused CSS rules, reducing production CSS file size by over 70%. Built-in lazy-loading solutions significantly improve page load speed:

<img data-src="image.jpg" class="lazyload" alt="Lazy-loaded image">

Limitations of Frameworks

Code redundancy becomes particularly noticeable in simple projects. When using Vuetify to build a single page, even if only a button component is needed, the final bundle still includes the full 170KB of CSS. Overriding default framework styles often requires increasing CSS specificity:

<style>
  /* !important needed to override framework styles */
  .my-btn {
    background-color: red !important;
  }
</style>
<button class="v-btn my-btn">Custom button</button>

The learning curve can be a barrier to team collaboration. React's JSX syntax differs significantly from traditional HTML, requiring new members to adapt to concepts like component lifecycles:

class MyComponent extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return <div>{this.props.content}</div>;
  }
}

Framework version upgrades may introduce compatibility issues. Angular's complete overhaul from 1.x to 2+ made many legacy projects non-migratable, requiring about 60% of template code to be rewritten. jQuery plugins are difficult to integrate with modern frameworks:

<!-- AngularJS 1.x syntax -->
<div ng-repeat="item in items">
  {{item.name}}
</div>

<!-- Angular 2+ syntax -->
<div *ngFor="let item of items">
  {{item.name}}
</div>

Design freedom is often restricted. Modifying the default theme color in Semantic UI requires recompiling the entire LESS file rather than simple CSS overrides. Specific layout needs may force the use of framework-discouraged hacks:

<div class="ui grid">
  <div class="row" style="margin-top: -1rem"> <!-- Non-standard margin adjustment -->
    <div class="column">Column with custom spacing</div>
  </div>
</div>

Considerations for Framework Selection

Project size directly affects framework suitability. A small promotional site may be more efficiently developed with pure CSS than with Vue, while an admin dashboard using Ant Design Pro can save about 40% development time. PWA projects should prioritize frameworks with Service Worker support:

<!-- Simpler projects benefit from native HTML -->
<section>
  <h2>Product Introduction</h2>
  <p>Using semantic tags directly</p>
</section>

Team expertise determines learning costs. A team experienced with React will find Material-UI more practical than switching to Svelte. TypeScript support should also be considered:

// Familiar React pattern for the team
interface Props {
  title: string;
}
const Header: React.FC<Props> = ({ title }) => (
  <header>{title}</header>
);

Performance requirements guide technology choices. Animation-heavy pages should use GSAP instead of jQuery-based animation frameworks, while e-commerce sites should prefer Next.js over traditional SPAs:

<!-- High-performance animations use CSS hardware acceleration -->
<div class="animate__animated animate__fadeInLeft">
  Hardware-accelerated animated element
</div>

Long-term maintenance costs are critical. Choosing actively updated frameworks (e.g., Vue 3) is more sustainable than maintaining deprecated ones (e.g., Polymer). Evaluate the framework's LTS support cycle:

<!-- Vue 3 Composition API example -->
<script setup>
import { ref } from 'vue'
const count = ref(0)
</script>
<template>
  <button @click="count++">{{ count }}</button>
</template>

Framework Customization Practices

Deep theme customization requires understanding the framework's variable system. Element Plus enables theme switching through SCSS variable overrides, requiring research into its variable mapping:

<style lang="scss">
/* Override primary color variable */
$--color-primary: #f56c6c;
@import 'element-plus/theme-chalk/src/index';
</style>

On-demand loading is key for optimization. With babel-plugin-import, Ant Design components can be imported individually:

<!-- After configuration, no need to import full styles -->
<script>
import { Button } from 'antd';
</script>
<template>
  <a-button type="primary">Load button only</a-button>
</template>

Custom components extend framework functionality. Create table components that fit project standards in Quasar:

<template>
  <q-table
    :rows="data"
    :columns="columns"
    @row-click="handleClick"
  />
</template>
<script>
export default {
  methods: {
    handleClick(evt, row) {
      /* Extend click logic */
    }
  }
}
</script>

Static asset optimization strategies must adapt to the framework. Nuxt.js's image component automatically handles WebP conversion and size optimization:

<nuxt-img
  src="/images/photo.jpg"
  width="800"
  height="600"
  quality="80"
  format="webp"
/>