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.
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!
> 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|5 days ago
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|5 days ago
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.