4 ms·
And here I am, upvoting the thread because I thought it's a statement about how ridiculous all the 'X in pure CSS' posts have gotten, while everyone else in thi
by phoboslab 14y ago
And here I am, upvoting the thread because I thought it's a statement about how ridiculous all the 'X in pure CSS' posts have gotten, while everyone else in this thread seems to be genuinely impressed.
- lowboy 14y agoAt least it's better than X in pure HTML5.
- grimlck 14y agoAnd that is better than the X in pure javascript posts, with X being something which was impressive 10 years ago in other languages
- egeozcan 14y ago...doing the same in a more restrictive environment (in this case, browser) is always an accomplishment.
- novalis 14y agoConflating positive fruition with positive value is just a positivistic error. That would mean that any fruition is beneficial by default. Unless someone made "logic in css". It doesn't stop others from having a valid pov because a made b in a more restrictive c env. Having said that, I like all the Mr Doob stuff and most openGL demo stuff coming out.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- skrebbel 14y agoIt's even more ridiculous once you realise that data: URLs work in CSS. Thus, I hereby present to you, the Mona Lisa in pure css (!!), using even fewer bytes! http://codepen.io/anon/pen/gnqlc http://codepen.io/anon/pen/gnqlc
- notum 14y agoWhy not go oldschool? Behold: Mona Lisa in pure html (!!), because more bytes is better. http://codepen.io/anon/pen/lJxAe http://codepen.io/anon/pen/lJxAe (may crash browsers)