It's not so hilarious if you're the one paying for bandwidth when hundreds of thousands of users are accessing your SSL site each day. Or if you're desperately trying to pull one page up quickly while on your smart phone in a region with sketchy (at best) mobile reception.

I'm one of those people who are obsessed with keeping file sizes to a minimum and, quite frankly, I find it "hilarious" when developers create sites with both a heavy bandwidth footprint and heavy CPU footprint rendering the bloody thing just because they insist users should experience a full desktop experience inside a web page. Those are different paradigms with different limitations and bottlenecks. Trying to shoehorn in a desktop paradigm (regardless of how elegant the OP might have considered Cappuccino's code) for the web simply didn't make sense back then; and that is why his project failed.

I also want to stress that I'm not against interactive sites. Obviously there is a happy medium between minimal design and the OP's vision of the web. However there have been studies that have proven that even a fraction of a second longer page load time can drive business away from your site. And given this and my former points, it makes considerable more sense to use more compact libraries to begin with.

Lastly, his point about many developers being unwilling to spend a little time learning web frameworks is something that I haven't personally encountered. But I can agree with his frustration on that specific remark if it is true.