If we could do it over, knowing that we'd eventually get to this point, would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript_Style_Sheets have been the better path?

▲

bawolff 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I would say no. I think CSS is a good language and made good choices.

And honestly we already essentially have this with CSS related apis in js. The examples in that article are basically identical to how you set css in js on modern web browsers with slightly different naming conventions.

▲

inopinatus 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I had a time machine I would go back and ensure that DSSSL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Style_Semantics_and_S...) was the standard that got up.

	▲	watersb 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		All hail the embedded Scheme interpreter to apply Style transformations! Although I feel like we've already explored this with XSL. The XML syntax was perhaps too much to swallow.
	▲	runarberg 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You write your markup in an xml syntax, your scripts in a C syntax, and your styles in a lisp syntax... a perfect trio.

▲

shiomiru 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I actually wonder if transpiling calc/min/max/etc. expressions to JS is a viable path to implementation, considering that you already need a fast interpreter for these.

▲

runarberg 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Probably not. There is a lot of optimizations browsers do to make the stylesheets super fast[1], and I think quite a few of those rely on CSS not being Turing complete.

1: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/08/inside-a-super-fast-css-en...

	▲	Sesse__ 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		CSS is Turing complete :-) You can find pure-CSS implementations of Game of Life, for instance.