4 ms·
> There is an open proposal(opens in new tab) to add a spring() timing function to CSS. Unlike linear(), this would actually be a true spring physics implementa
by dmitrygr 1y ago
> There is an open proposal(opens in new tab) to add a spring() timing function to CSS. Unlike linear(), this would actually be a true spring physics implementation! It wouldn’t have any of the limitations we’ve discussed here.
Uh huh...
How long till a proper implementation of CSS requires a proper emulator of relativistic physics and quantum effects? Have we learned nothing from modern browsers already becoming de-facto poorly-specced and poorer-yet implemented JS-based operating systems / malware delivery vehicles?
- afavour 1y agoIt’s a timing function.
- tshaddox 1y agoIt’s just spring physics, hardly a slippery slope to a Newtonian physics engine let alone a relativistic or quantum physics engine. I wouldn’t describe the math as significantly more complex than Bézier curves.
- dmitrygr 1y agoEvery thing you add is another step away from making building another browser engine a possibility.
- alt187 1y agoI'm not absolutely certain the spring() function would be in the top 1500 of things that are hard to implement in a grassroots browser engine.
- tshaddox 1y agoIndeed. I suspect that generally the older a web feature is, the more difficult it would be for a new browser lot implement.
- dmitrygr 1y agoThe point I’m making is about the number of features. Even if every single one is simple, when most websites require a different subset, to be a viable browser, you have to implement them all so growing the number increases the difficulty of implementing a viable browser.