4 ms·

Predictably, all the same people who bemoan JS ubiquity feel the need to express their distaste for advances in CSS in this thread. Nobody is actually doing stu

by namuol 8mo ago

Predictably, all the same people who bemoan JS ubiquity feel the need to express their distaste for advances in CSS in this thread. Nobody is actually doing stuff like this in real applications, it’s just a demo, for fun. I get the feeling some people just hate the web.

Dylan16807 8mo ago
Your grumpiness contradicts itself. To the extent that it's just for fun, it's not an advance. And CSS being Turing complete doesn't make it suitable to replace any JS it couldn't already replace, so why can't JS-haters dislike the idea? If I didn't like a language and people offered an even worse to use replacement I'd be justified in having distaste for it!
- namuol 8mo ago
  > To the extent that it's just for fun, it's not an advance. The features which are being exploited to implement this are indeed advances. > If I didn't like a language and people offered an even worse to use replacement I'd be justified in having distaste for it! You’re missing my point. Nobody is actually suggesting replacing JS with CSS, but many new CSS features eliminate the need to use JS to accomplish what you need in terms of behavior or style. Nobody is seriously suggesting CSS is a _replacement_ for JS, it’s just a better solution for certain common things on the web.
  - Dylan16807 8mo ago
    > The features which are being exploited to implement this are indeed advances. The specific way it became Turing complete seems more accidental than anything. We could have had pretty much the same features without the same --var handling. > You’re missing my point. Nobody is actually suggesting replacing JS with CSS, but many new CSS features eliminate the need to use JS to accomplish what you need in terms of behavior or style. I'm also talking about replacing specific things. But none of the specific things done in this article are easier in CSS than in JS. If you're talking about different posts about CSS, I haven't seen those ones.

by namuol 8mo ago

Dylan16807 8mo ago

Your grumpiness contradicts itself. To the extent that it's just for fun, it's not an advance. And CSS being Turing complete doesn't make it suitable to replace any JS it couldn't already replace, so why can't JS-haters dislike the idea? If I didn't like a language and people offered an even worse to use replacement I'd be justified in having distaste for it!

namuol 8mo ago
> To the extent that it's just for fun, it's not an advance. The features which are being exploited to implement this are indeed advances. > If I didn't like a language and people offered an even worse to use replacement I'd be justified in having distaste for it! You’re missing my point. Nobody is actually suggesting replacing JS with CSS, but many new CSS features eliminate the need to use JS to accomplish what you need in terms of behavior or style. Nobody is seriously suggesting CSS is a _replacement_ for JS, it’s just a better solution for certain common things on the web.
- Dylan16807 8mo ago
  > The features which are being exploited to implement this are indeed advances. The specific way it became Turing complete seems more accidental than anything. We could have had pretty much the same features without the same --var handling. > You’re missing my point. Nobody is actually suggesting replacing JS with CSS, but many new CSS features eliminate the need to use JS to accomplish what you need in terms of behavior or style. I'm also talking about replacing specific things. But none of the specific things done in this article are easier in CSS than in JS. If you're talking about different posts about CSS, I haven't seen those ones.