4 ms·
CSS is the epitome of design by committee, only worse. It’s worse because some members had a vested interest for the standard to fail. As a result, we get threa
by lbenes 13y ago
CSS is the epitome of design by committee, only worse. It’s worse because some members had a vested interest for the standard to fail. As a result, we get threads like this from designers, and programmers; they're in a worse bind. It’s just not possible to efficiently hardware accelerate CSS.
Of JS/DOM/CSS in HTML5, CSS is the worst standard. Depreciation is the best we can hope for. I’m sure MS and Mozilla will fight it tooth and nail, but maybe Google will pull a Dart/Go here and give us something decent to work with.
- emn13 13y agoI've got exactly the opposite opinion: of JS/HTML/CSS, CSS is y far the best standard. People complain because it doesn't address their specific needs explicitly (e.g. vertical centering) - but that way lies madness; a huge spec that caters for every case explictly, and probably has lots of corner cases and interactions meaning that cross-browser support would be even harder than now. CSS is limited - and that's a good thing. Would you want to implement complex layout in JS, say? And how that would look when window size changes, or the page is zoomed, or some font isn't available? The declarative nature of CSS is what makes it work; and the key aspect of declarative here is that it represents a state, not an algorithm - it's not turing complete. You'll never be able to do everything in CSS; and that's by design.
- slacka 13y agoIt's not an issue of turning completeness. CSS was never designed to be hardware accelerated. So many implementations run faster in software. Here's a good example: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10014461/why-does-enabling-hardware-acceleration-in-css3-slow-down-performance http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10014461/why-does-enablin...