In a few years when you're not 12 any more, you'll be embarassed by this. When that happens, don't sweat it, we were all 12 at some point. I'm just lucky that for me that was before the internet.
What are you trying to communicate in this comment? That you have spite for your users? Why? That you consider not bothering with Firefox support to be a good way to, what, express your spite? Do I have that right?
I support baseline browsers unless it’s not feasible otherwise. Sometimes things just aren’t possible in certain browsers. It’s expensive and difficult to design and implement things that fail gracefully. I’m not actually spiteful towards Firefox or its users; I _am_ spiteful toward other developers who feel they are entitled to leaving hostile comments for free hobby projects that don’t support their browser of choice for frankly technical reasons.
I was being facetious for rhetorical purposes. The OP I was replying to was unfairly hostile. I will also hazard a guess that they don’t have much experience writing sophisticated software for browsers.
I responded with the same sort of hostility to make my point that you’re not going to win “hearts and minds” for your cause by insulting developers for relying on browser standards that aren’t yet baseline. My point is that I am not persuaded by hostility, and I suspect other developers aren’t either. Users like this give their browser of choice a bad reputation when they make it part of their hostile identity.
At least investors like Amazon can afford to lose their investment ($50 billion). That would be like a normal person losing a few thousand dollars. It hurts, but life would go on.
That’s still $100B unaccounted for, and I’m pretty sure Amazon would expect fair treatment if other investors get a bailout. More likely, OpenAI is the one to receive the bailout, likely at the behest of the bigger investors, Amazon included.
That's why there's been such a massive effort to position LLMs as critical to national security. If they can make themselves big enough and critical enough (even in just perception) to the government they won't let them fail. They'll let individuals lose their livelihoods of course, since it's rugged individualism for all of us lowley normal people. But corporate socialism will keep the big players afloat.
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.
> 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.
Obfuscate? I can learn tailwind and use it in dozens of projects. I can use tailwind in my project and onboard dozens of developers immediately. I can learn your CSS conventions and use them in exactly one project.
He wrote "learn your CSS conventions" which implies that every team and every project will have a different set of conventions. Hidden inside that statement is the fact that he just accepted that Tailwind should be THE CSS convention, something I personally disagree with but to each their own.
No. Tailwind is a way of writing css, not a convention. By “your” convention I’m referring to the problems with the cascade, ie naming classes and so on. I’m not saying tailwind is the only other way. There are many ways to write CSS but doing it with something bespoke for your situation is usually a bad idea.
reply