[seangrogg]

It is rather ironic that the chief complaints about JS are how it makes things bloated and unresponsive, yet this is 100x the size of http://www.play-minesweeper.com and the time to interactivity is recognizable by comparison. The HN community is a funny one, sometimes.

[hombre_fatal]

The OP is a 1.23MB tech demo in CSS absurdism, not a baseline for performance comparisons. You have the wrong take-away if you think you can squeeze any sort of performance point from this.

It's like seeing that fun tech demo that implements Brainfuck in Rust's type system and going "heh, and they said compiled languages were fast? I can do this faster in PHP!"

[seangrogg]

You have the wrong take-away if you think the performance points were what I was actually focused on.

The HN community largely rails against the use of JS anywhere, even if not using JS would make things much more difficult. Therefore, it's funny when someone makes a relatively trivial app not using any JS and it exacerbates the problems people cite for JS rather than not.

The whole thing is really cool and I love how they managed to get so far using some cool CSS tricks. But per the community it should also be a godsend because by not using JS it should by default make it faster, smaller, and probably cure cancer or solve for FTL travel or something.

[smichel17]

JS is the right tool for the job when you want to make something highly interactive. I can't remember seeing anybody dispute that here. Having said that, I now expect at least one reply from someone who does dispute it.

[quickthrower2]

2003 says "what about Flash, Java Applets, ActiveX controls, VBScript, Silverlight"

Well maybe 2003 didn't mention Silverlight.

[draw_down]

Trust me, I have a whole trove of rants about how HN talks about JavaScript. Lotta rants in that trove.