[billybolton]

HTML and DOM is the current way that is forced on us. What if I had a better model? I can't implement it myself. The DOM was meant to describe documents, not interactive webpages. HTML and CSS never had to compete with other ideas or technologies, because you physically can't do it.

The DOM is a relic from the 90s that refuses to die.

[blotter_paper]

Implement it yourself, rendering to WebGL (with a canvas fallback if you really care). When you're done, show HN! We'll probably mock you, unless it's somehow awesome. The DOM is horrible, and knowing what we know now we could at least make it less weird, but some of the big annoyances really are its greatest strengths.

[billybolton]

I am doing something similar. The problem is not just HTML/CSS it's also JS. You need a strongly typed language, and have a scripting language on top. What I'm doing now is a Rust based framework, with an Erlang like scripting language to define complex interactions. Taking inspiration from Flash, all animations and transitions can be keyframed with tweens. Taking inspiration from the C/C++ to python interoperability, I want the same with Rust and Erlang. Now my entire backend can be written in Rust.

Unfortunately, I'm not open sourcing it. Not until I get a proper graphics context, and implement my own rendering engine. I think web assembly is going to revolutionize the web. I see browsers allowing you to cache common libraries/assets, and html/css being replaced by several competing UI paradigms. The one I favour is inspired from functional reactive paradigm, but there are equally valid alternatives. I don't think there will be a single frame work to rule them all, just competing schools of thought. Right now the web doesn't have any competing paradigms, just html, css,and js.

Reason web sucks: HTML/CSS are not suited to define complex UIs with intricate layouts and complex transitions and key frame animation. This problem was better addressed 30 years ago. Look at the menu UIs in games from the n64/ps1 to ps2/gamecube era (I'm talking about the game menus, not the game themselves). Some of them had far more impressive UIs than the webpages of today. This type of UI is an order of magnitude harder with html/css than just doing it all via X11 and C (even with memory management concerns).

The reason for this is that HTML first isn't strongly typed. If you make something complicated, and make a small change, it messes everything up. Your compiler can't help you. HTML tags are somewhat inconsistent. React, Rails etc. are all trying to address this problem. They are all taking inspiration from android, iOS, QT and gtk+ to make it somewhat component based. However, you fundamentally can't achieve this. HTML is in a land of its own, when you create an HTML tag, sure you can wrap it in a JS class, and mimic some of the characteristics that desktop frameworks provide you. You won't get the whole thing. I've seen many times different frameworks reinventing html templates (like handle bars). Templates can't solve all issues.

CSS sucks. The first thing about css that sucks is the "cascading" part of css. It should just be ss. CSS was originally designed to limit bandwidth by having it cascading. That's not the case today, and it messes everything up. The second thing that sucks, similar to why html sucks, is that again css is in a land of its own. It's hard to control css from JS (for interactive site you want this). I'm not even going to talk about how hard it is to position things properly via css when you are building layouts dynamically.

JS just sucks. I don't think I need to elaborate, I've mentioned enough points already.

Every single web framework out there is trying to address some aspect of the problems I mentioned, but my claim is that you can't solve it, you need to start over. Imagine if CPU makers made crappy inconsistent assembly code. Every year a new compilers and languages come out that tries to fix their predecessors. The most logical choice is instead to ditch that chip maker, make a better CPU with a consistent assembly code. You can't do that with web, you can't ditch assembly(html,js,css).

It only took 30 years for the web to get web sockets, webgl and now wasm. I think in another 20 years we'll come a full and get the remaining amenities that modern operating systems provide.

The reason I chose Rust is because it's a low level language with strong typing. It's not quite Haskell, but good enough. Writing a web server and UI with Rust is very nice. It just connects to the backend processes with ease, and doesn't make things awkward the way npm does. I do a lot of low level numerical and mathematical simulations, all done in C/Rust with all coordination & distributed computing done in Rust. I want Rust to take over. The sequence should be: Erlang -> Rust -> C

I chose Erlang because years ago I saw how reactive programming is extremely useful for complex interactions in a AAA game I was working on. In a game system you have the play interacting with the world, with enemies. The enemies interact with the player and each other. The player can pause the game at any point, then you need to bring up a menu screen with its own interactions. I've seen this work flow done in many different ways, and by far the reactive paradigm is the most sane. This was done in a bastardized version of Lua and Lisp.

[blotter_paper]

I pretty much agree about JS and Rust, but I find myself disagreeing with some of your points regarding CSS/HTML.

>> Reason web sucks: HTML/CSS are not suited to define complex UIs with intricate layouts and complex transitions and key frame animation.

CSS does have a concept of keyframes now (I know this may not cover everything you like about flash keyframes, but I figured I'd throw it out there in case you were unaware): https://www.w3schools.com/css/css3_animations.asp

>> This problem was better addressed 30 years ago. Look at the menu UIs in games from the n64/ps1 to ps2/gamecube era (I'm talking about the game menus, not the game themselves).

Those layouts had a known aspect ration, 4:3, and a reasonable expectation of being viewed on a large screen. HTML and CSS are expected to work on a wider variety of screens that may change size and aspect ratio on the fly, possibly during an animation. If I only had to make HTML/CSS animations for use on a normal television screen with a known zoom level in a specific browser, I could make interfaces every bit as beautiful as your N64 games (well... with a competent designer, but my point is that I could write the layout and script the animations). Some of the pain points of HTML and CSS are historical accidents that can't be changed without breaking compatibility, but some of them are quite useful and necessary. Responsive design is a good thing, it just sucks to write an animation that works in a whole range of aspect ratios and zoom levels. It's a problem that Sony and Nintendo never had to design around. The amount to which this constraint cripples and strengthens the web is hard properly convey. I love and hate it, but as time goes on I learn to hate it less and love it more.

>> It's hard to control css from JS (for interactive site you want this)

It's costly, as it touches the DOM, but it's not hard. Just change the class attribute (or even the inline style attribute -- there are cases where this can be argued for). Simple example: https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_htmldom_css.asp

[orange8]

> The first thing about css that sucks is the "cascading" part of css.

This tells me you hve very little experience with CSS or even HTML. The cascade saves you from declaring "font-size: 16px" in every single element of your page. Think of it as a form of property inheritance

[bfred_it]

Sorry, you can’t say “CSS sucks” when the only limitation it has is your lack of knowledge. If YOU can’t build complex layouts with it, it’s not the language’s fault. Plenty of people can. Open an “awards” site and see what people can do and you can’t.

[PretzelFisch]

It depends on what you compare it to, most native stacks have a more simple and understandable way of handling styling and control layout. You can cut a lot of things with an ax, but you shouldn't criticize someone for wanting a saw, even if you can build the skill set to do the same with an ax.

[kreetx]

Implement the better model on top of current tech and show us. It is a competition, it's just that noone is competing.

[Felz]

The fundamental problem is that if you do end up reimplementing a slightly better DOM yourself, you end up with (e.g.) 20 MB of browser and rendering code. This will have to be downloaded by the client. If this were a onetime thing (perhaps some kind of "install"), it wouldn't be a problem.

But browser caches aren't generally up to the task of making it a onetime thing because:

-They're usually pretty small.

-They'll evict pretty frequently.

-They're limited to same-origin, even if the content cached is exactly the same. (For security reasons, yes, but there's no way to opt out.)

If caches were fixed, I think we would see a much healthier web ecosystem. Incidentally, it would make the browser vendors themselves fairly obsolete, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet.

I think billybolton is right that HTML/CSS/JS/the DOM all kind of suck, and that they can't feasibly be replaced is problematic. The heroic modern struggle of the web ecosystem is an attempt to encapsulate and work around the suckiness.

[billybolton]

> Incidentally, it would make the browser vendors themselves fairly obsolete, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet.

Mostly, but not entirely true. It's been a while seen we've seen a new browser come out, but the time is ripe to begin work on one, and release it in a few years. Just fork webkit to maintain backwards compatibility. I see browsers just becoming a sandbox virtual machine with a key ring, with minimal functionality.

Apple has the strongest incentives to build what I am mentioning. Not sure if they will.

[Felz]

I could see a case for all the other big tech companies, but why Apple?

[chrisco255]

Given that web tech is used to build mobile and desktop apps that might not be a bad trade-off for those cases.

[russdpale]

That is a good way to put it.

It took 100 years to go from the onset of the printing press to the book form and we are in some weird in between time frame where browsers aren't really enough to do what we want. Conceptually it is going to take something that is revolutionary, yet at the same time extremely familiar... like the book. I bet we would find similar strains in the intervening decades between the printing press and the book.

[PretzelFisch]

It feels like we are in the video/book choose your own adventure stage. It's clunky and it more or less works. But there will be a better way.