Care to argue why? Also, there are countless alternative languages to compile down to HTML or CSS available. Feel free to create your own if none agree with your personal leanings.
Yeah, like my favorite of these lately, widows and orphans. Chrome changed a default that affected inline-blocks within columns that caused them to wrap prematurely after version 52 or so. It is especially bad because the other popular browsers don't even support these yet and looked fine.
Where do I start?
1) Designed for document presentation, not for apps. 2) Limited widget selection (native forms and that's it). 3) Different implementations between vendors. 4) Bad at layout (20+ years to get to Flex and Grid CSS layout which kind of resembles UI layouts but is still not supported everywhere. 5) Slow 6) Batter hungry 7) Too many un-needed UI layers (DOM over native widgets) 8) Extra language layer (JS on top of v8 on top of native execution) 9) JS is not the best language to write large scale software (to put it mildly) 10) Restricted access/integration to native platform APIs.
I agree that simply saying X sucks is not a valid argument. Howeever with CSS/HTML the flaws are too numerous and already discussed ad nauseam over the past 15 years. Everytime a new version of CSS comes out, people go and try it and find out that it sucks, whether its th broken box model or the broken float layout techniques or the constant fiddling you are forced to do to get anything working. Every web developer I've seen adopts the 'edit and refresh' trial and error model of developing which is the direct result of a bad spec. Which also explains why there isn't even a reference implementation. As far as UI layout is concerned I am fairly sure I could out-compete a web developer in terms of time taken to implement, using something like IMGUI.
As someone who has spent years implementing those standards, a reference implementation would not help me at all.
> As far as UI layout is concerned I am fairly sure I could out-compete a web developer in terms of time taken to implement, using something like IMGUI.
Dear imgui's layout model doesn't scale at all, due to the fact that it's immediate mode. It redoes layout from scratch every frame.
I don't quite understand what you meant your comment to be indicative of. That nobody else would consider it useful? That you personally see no value in reference implementations at all?
>Dear imgui's layout model doesn't scale at all, due to the fact that it's immediate mode. It redoes layout from scratch every frame.
Could you detail the UI are you thinking of where IMGUI is inefficient but HTML/CSS isn't? Not asking for a formal spec, just a general usecase..
My problem with CSS/HTML is that productivity scales inversely when using them.
Well, considering that the web has been for decades a landmine of subtle rendering differences based on different interpretations of the same standards, it would surely help others...
Also, I'm not sure what you're saying here. That, warts and all, you love the web as a programming platform?
Well, maybe you do.
But then again, you don't program everyday IN it. You program a rendering engine for it in Rust, so you're safely protected from the horrors of web programming.
>Dear imgui's layout model doesn't scale at all, due to the fact that it's immediate mode. It redoes layout from scratch every frame.
Aren't (or at least weren't) most computer games "immediate mode" too, and far more demanding than any web page?
Which isn't a problem if you're layout algorithm is fast/simple. If it's not, then it's a bigger issue.