It's neat and all but I feel like there's something so utterly unnecessary and gratuitous about beautiful bouncy payment web widgets.
Makes me sad that CSS programmers make truckloads of money while other workers in the economy rot.
Makes me sad that CSS programmers make truckloads of money while other workers in the economy rot.
How many people do you know that only work with CSS?
And why shouldn't artists and engineers who are good at what they do and create aesthetically pleasing functional designs get paid appropriately?
Salary is a simple function of supply and demand, if your employee can find better pay elsewhere, you either increase his salary or let him fly. If you want to retain talent, you have to pay what the market pays. There isn't some kind of secret conspiracy where employers are shortchanging people who work in a more saturated market.
I'm highly suspicious you have no idea what you're talking about given your use of the phrase "CSS programmers". You shouldn't get angry at things you don't grok.
I agree that there is too much window dressing on the web, an aesthetic defined by gratuitous graphic elements and distractions. The only purpose it serves is to project an image, it is marketing.
It used to be that pretty designs are seen as more trustworthy, but there has been a backlash. The superficial optimism of modern web design is becoming less and less effective, and it's taking more effort to pull it off.
1. CSS isn't a programming language 2. If "workers in the economy rot" while "CSS 'programmers' make truckloads of money" then they aren't in the right industry.
HTML5 and CSS3 together can provide a Turing-complete environment, but on its own CSS is just absolutely not a programming language.
There are no "CSS programmers" and regardless I don't even know of any web developer who gets paid to only write CSS.
Just a healthy bit of advice, consider refraining from using absolutes when engaging in discussions where you could possibly be incorrect.
It places you in a position where you are unlikely to accept that you are wrong due to personal embarrassment.
That doesn't make it distinct from programming, you've just added more specificity.
CSS is not turing complete, is not a programming language, etc. It is a declarative, presentational language with no processing capabilities beyond extremely basic math.
There is no if, and, or but about it. Are you a web developer?
* edited to sound like less of an asshole
You need to do more editing.
A programming language doesn't need to be turing complete. But CSS is neither of the two.
But I very clearly did not conflate turing completeness as a requirement of a programming language. I just thought it was worth mentioning that CSS3 + HTML5 is Turing complete.
And you are still completely incorrect about CSS being a programming language. I think we are done here.
Nope.
The whole point is, nothing about CSS being a stylesheet or presentational language makes it fall outside of the definition of programming language.