Posted by Ben C on 04/17/07 22:20

On 2007-04-17, Jon Slaughter <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Well, My issue is not learning it so much but I guess I get pissed when I
> run into trouble and they do it in such a contorted way. Languages are
> suppose to be about making things easier and not more difficult.
>
> As far as I'm concerned I'd rather use JS as atleast it is a programming
> language. But ofcourse then it limits my user base. Why not just use a lite
> version of JS that removes all the main issues with it that people don't
> like instead of comming up with an entirely new way(and then another and
> another).

One of the issues with it people might not like is the very fact that it
is a programming language. I might not want to allow just any old
program written by anyone to run on my computer. But I mind less reading
their HTML documents or letting them make suggestions about how they
should be laid out in stylesheets.

> I'm tired of a new language comming out every 3.4 days just because
> someone thinks they can do it better.
>
> Instead of being productive one ends up spending there time learning the new
> language. CSS looks good from the outside but not having basic programming
> constructs severly limits its ability. I only use it because it is
> standard. I'd rather use JS because atleast with that I know whats going on.
> CSS seems fine for simple transformative applications but anything beyond
> that seems to be hell and counterproductive. Maybe they will fix the issues
> in later versions.
>
> I'm just here to learn enough to get me through my site. Maybe I should do
> less bitching though and just learn it. Just really peeves me off when I
> have to deal with so many incongruities between implementations.

It's only really IE that causes all those problems. The rest are largely
consistent on a large subset of the CSS 2.1 spec.

[Back to original message]