Comment by embedding-shape

Or they are performant now. But once people start writing CSS code the same way the write JS code, they stop to be. You can still write super-tight code in ASM (or eve C) and it will be blazing fast. Almost nobody does it, because it's too hard. Once people start writing CSS the same way, it'll become slow and bloated too.

I am not a CS expert, but this does not look like a full implementation of rule 110, nor is it even pure CSS (there is HTML involved).

What I see in the SO answer is an interface for Rule 110 with an additional set of instruction (written in a natural language) for the user to execute manually. So you can use CSS + HTML to create an interface for a Rule 110, which is then written in a natural language around that interface. The answer even states that (very relevant) caveat.

> [...] so long as you consider an appropriate accompanying HTML file and user interactions to be part of the “execution” of CSS.

As always, hindsight is 20/20, but when you're living it, the half-baked decisions and add-ons are a product of you figuring it out on the fly. You don't have the knowledge of which proposal will solidify into an industry standard, and you don't know which vestigial implementations will be a nightmare for backwards compatibility down the line.

The context is also lost. Javascript was famously coded in a day or whatever and called 'javascript' not ecmascript as marketing to compete with Java. Besides that well known case there's presumably thousands of esoteric business decisions made back then which shaped the "sprawling, ludicrous" landscape, and which are now lost to time.

Yes, the web should have always been a programming language. And the flying cars of 23xx should have never used a z-debuffer doodad.

> with all the usual constructs available in both the display and markup layers.

I'm glad the transition to mobile web accelerated on more battery efficient GPUs was possible due to the model instead of Alan Kay's idea that websites should render themselves, where each website would have needed to be upgraded for GPU support for compositing.

Considering how this is seems to be designed... I don't think that's the reason?

I mean looking at the mdn docs it's just a replacement for regular other syntax https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/V...

So instead of having a css for x which defines e.g. dark mode and light mode separately, you can now define it via a single css rule.

Where previously the "tree" forked at the beginning and attributes were set multiple times, depending on various criteria - now you set it once, and evaluate it's value depending on criteria

    div {
      background-image: if(
        style(--scheme: ice): linear-gradient(#caf0f8, white, #caf0f8);
        style(--scheme: fire): linear-gradient(#ffc971, white, #ffc971);
        else: none;
      );
    }

It looks like simple syntactic sugar to me

Please provide evidence for that proof.

Can you quantify that?

The disadvantages are in the post I linked to.