x86 is by design an imperative abstraction. It makes sense for it to be Turing-complete. Very few imperative abstractions are not (the only one that comes to

x86 is by design an imperative abstraction. It makes sense for it to be Turing-complete. Very few imperative abstractions are not (the only one that comes to mind is DTrace's D Language). CSS is primarily a declarative abstraction that grew complex enough to be Turing-complete. You would hope that by paying that complexity you would at least get an abstraction that was convenient enough to write by hand. But CSS has neither the static-analysis benefits of a non-Turing-complete language nor the convenience benefits of a fully Turing-complete language.