3 ms·
What I find most hilarious in hindsight is that the parent poster, myself, and everyone in this thread except the article poster seemed to miss the first line a
by knappador 13y ago
What I find most hilarious in hindsight is that the parent poster, myself, and everyone in this thread except the article poster seemed to miss the first line about "ironic answer" yet we're all insisting that it was a serious example meant to really show off something awesome. I've seen some really out-there code that was really instructional, such as Urbit http://www.urbit.org/2013/09/24/urbit-intro.html http://www.urbit.org/2013/09/24/urbit-intro.html, in spite of its admitted uselessness, but CSS transforms were all I expected to see and all I got.
Now that I understand the author's intent, it's furthermore impossible for me to go along with a narrative that every experiment has equal or potential to lead to some mind-rattling insight. If anything, the posts about how someday shaders might build entire games etc just demonstrate how, behind the wall of basic comprehension of how GLSL's inner workings and things like Chomsky grammar concepts create fundamental limitations, the barriers one will encounter are both insurmountable and undetectable. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open-tags-except-xhtml-self-contained-tags/1732454#1732454 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open-...
CSS itself has annoying limits that can be summed up with the existence of tools like LESS and Stylus that add expressions to generated CSS, giving us an infinitely more capable styling system, albeit still suffering from annoying limitations that keep me sour to many CSS uses. Quite simply, everything in CSS transitions has an API so far from how animation is dealt with programmatically that I find only the most basic utilizations to -ever- be appropriate. This doesn't even mention the fact of shims, fallbacks, and the JS that deals with them. The idea that we're "pushing limits", much less making progress with examples like this is not one I'm buying into.