3 ms·
As an upfront disclaimer, I want to state that I think this is incredibly neat, and that I'm just trying to resolve a nagging question in my head. Every time I
by chao- 14y ago
As an upfront disclaimer, I want to state that I think this is incredibly neat, and that I'm just trying to resolve a nagging question in my head.
Every time I see very well-done CSS animations, and especially when I see it extended into the realm of 3D graphics, I immediately think: To do all of this [animation/3D], the creator had to know a good bit about [animation/3D]. What makes them look at CSS and say "Yes! THIS is the language I want to do serious 3D work in!"?
Put less sarcastically: I find CSS to be a pain more often than not. What advantages do these Webkit-only CSS tricks have over WebGL? I was given the impression that the latter is more fully-featured.
- thomasxiii 14y agoI totally agree with you. Implementing this with WebGL would be much, much easier. However, I believe there is a need for lighting effects for simple interfaces built with HTML and CSS. The library is more for intermediate developers who want to add a touch of lighting without heavy programming. Modeling 3D objects – like the Photon crane – with CSS is absurd! It was done solely for that initial "neato!" effect. Hope that helps clear some things up.
- chao- 14y agoClears it up perfectly :)
- tambourine_man 14y agoI think it's same reason why people develop a JavaScript game of Tron in 219 bytes. Because you can, because it's a challenge and fun. I don't really know why, but I also find great joy in working in constrained environments, and usually end up learning something in the process.