Crazy to see how far we've come.

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/04/forever/

EDIT: https://cssdoom.wtf/

Interestingly, it was more choppy in Chromium.

I could not find a key for moving sideways ("strafing").

All in all, quite mind-boggling.

Firefox's WebRender is truly a great creation. While Chrome is faster at most things especially involving JS, Firefox puts so much of its rendering on the GPU so moving elements around is incredibly fast.

But there's a lot more CSS features now. While in the past, Turing completeness in CSS required humans to click on checkboxes, now CSS can emulate an entire CPU without JavaScript or requiring user interaction.[1] So I wonder if DOOM could be purely CSS too, in real time.

[0]: https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/ [1]: https://lyra.horse/x86css/

> Yes, Lyra Rebane build a x86 CPU completely in CSS, but that technique is simply not fast enough for handing the game loop. So the result is something that uses a lot of JavaScript.

not only do i think doom in css is possible, but both me and another css person were also planning on actually making it into reality

but it sort of feels demotivating to see js-powered css projects like this hit the frontpage, because if we do eventually make a css-only doom people will think its a repost or nothing special

edit: and to be clear, that demotivation is more of a problem of how the internet, virality, and news cycles work. the actual project here is still pretty cool!

FYI if you want to use inspect element, the viewport div consumes mouse elements, you can get rid of this with

  #viewport {
    pointer-events: none;
  }
  #viewport * {
    pointer-events: initial;
  }

https://www.simplethread.com/new-and-upcoming-css-features-i...

And this project kinda show how far you can go, still, if you really want it :D

The post here could really use it though. The main content is pushed to the bottom of the page!

Use 3D CSS to enhance a 2D page with some flair. But be aware, 3D CSS, it's trying to solve things that most realtime 3D rendering does not, like intersecting planes need to be subdivided in order to correctly handle transparency. This means 3D CSS has an O(N^2) or worse type of issue vs rendering yourself using WebGL or WebGPU where you'd avoid those issues. This demo probably does not intersect any planes but the browser itself has to check for those intersections anyway. TL;DR: If you're going to make a 3D web game use WebGL or WebGPU, not 3D CSS

Very cool demo though!

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id= and marked it off topic.

Also if I want I can cross-compile a static build of Frotz for Linux/Misc and emulate it under a RISC interpreter for Linux syscalls written in... Perl, runable in every modern Perl port out there. Linux/RISC binary under Perl for NetBSD/Vax? Yes. Slow? Not much, it's a text game in the end.

But, as for the ZMachine, you can run text adventures in Android, Game Boy, Amiga, MSDOS, Windows, Palm PDA's... anything 8bit and up.

Also, damn Sokoban under Eforth written in Subleq, a VM which can just:

- set up a 2^16 RAM size

- single opcode: substract A from B, if less than 0, go to addr in C. - A < 0? Get ASCII input in B - B < 0? Put ASCII output in B - C < 0? End

This, just this, and people wrote Subleq simulators in C, AWK, Python, TCL, FPGA's and whatnot. And it will run Eforth, and that means... you can write a ZMachine interpreter on it and be really slow if emulated in a Pentium 4 (maybe 3/5 seconds per command with a ZMachine on top of Eforth for Muxleq instead of Subleq), but the game will be playable and a great exercise on Turing completeness.

If a Mandlebrot render under Muxleq+EForth (with no floats used, just integers) is as fast as a C64/Amiga with a native Forth. then having that tiny EForth+Muxleq is not that useless.

https://github.com/howerj/muxleq

Use Deutex, GNU make and Pillow for Python to compile.

Then wou will have up-to-date IWADS to be used aywhere. No need to put ID copyrights, just a mention to FreeDoom creators.

Also: a modern CPU is around 10000x faster than the 486 CPU Doom was designed for. Per core.

No

>No

Yes

No

Yes

> [Paladin] Attack!

I guess I am asking, if modern CSS is so awesome, it's awesome compared to what exactly?

Duct tape is awesome for the same reason -- even though there are several effective use cases for duct tape where a different tool would technically be "better" for the job.

You can keep it high level but your comment makes me think you have something in mind, and I'm honestly curious.

In CSS on the web, just centering a div has historically been a problem. We have flexbox now, but what if CSS was designed with our current needs from the get-go?

No doubt the very loudly opinionated not-web-dev community, who have So Much To Say about web devs and web tech, have produced an uncontroversial, perfect layout system, styling system, and language to produce the replacement for this awful web tech. Where is it? What is it? Please provide (the better version of) a hyperlink to the docs.

So yes I will argue that Qt6 and GTK are better than flexboxes.

Because you asked for it, here's some documentation to a UI framework which I believe to work better than the web stack: https://doc.qt.io/qtforpython-6/PySide6/QtWidgets/index.html

For static content like documents the distinction is easy to determine. When you think about applications, widgets, and other interactive elements the line starts to blur.

Before things like flex layout, positioning content with a 100% height was hard, resulting in JavaScript being used for layout and positioning.

Positioning a dropdown menu, tooltip, or other content required JavaScript. Now you can specify the anchor position of the element via CSS properties. Determining which anchor position to use also required JavaScript, but with things like if() can now be done directly in CSS.

Implementing disclosure elements had to be done with a mix of JavaScript and CSS. Now you can use the details/summary elements and CSS to style the open/close states.

Animation effects when opening an element, on hover, etc. such as easing in colour transitions can easily be done in CSS now. Plus, with the reduced motion media query you can gate those effects to that user preference in CSS.

at what point is CSS powerful enough to become a malware vector.

> The problem: CSS can compute a number – 0 for visible and 1 for hidden – but you can’t directly use that number to set visibility. There is a new feature coming to CSS that solves this: if(), but right now it only just shipped in Chrome.

> So I used a trick called type grinding. You create a paused animation that toggles visibility between visible and hidden. Then you set the animation-delay based on the computed value to determine which keyframe is used:

  animation: cull-toggle 1s step-end paused;
  animation-delay: calc(var(--cull-outside) \* -0.5s);

  @keyframes cull-toggle {
    0%, 49.9% { visibility: visible; }
    50%, 100% { visibility: hidden; }
  }

This is the real horror here, Uncanny-Valley gameplay Doom. It's like those Doom maps where people tried to recreate the game levels from memory, but still made a few mistakes and got some details wrong. This is like that, but for the gameplay rather than the level layouts. It's different enough to be wrong.

We have Green Armor that sets your armor to 200%. Health Bonuses that reset your health to 100% if you exceeded that number, too bad if you recently collected a Soul Sphere. Switch-activated doors that are supposed to stay open, but instead automatically close, but then the secret wall unexpectedly activates like a manual door.

> "Once I’ve proven to myself that rendering was feasible, I used Claude to create an approximate version of the game loop in JavaScript based on the original DOOM source, which to me is the least interesting part of the project"

This post is about whether you can render Doom in CSS not whether Claude can replicate Doom gameplay. I doubt the author even bothered to give the game loop much QA.

Would that be better or worse for webdev? I don't know. But I like to ponder.

Good question, I personally think that seperating by concerns is good. But when problems arise like boundaries that get crossed or compilers implementing language features into css like Sass, maybe it proves that those things are actually not two concerns but one.

Lately I am using Catch2 (a c++ testing framework) and wanted to benchmark some code. My first instinct was looking for a benchmark framework. But to my surprise Catch2 does also have a benchmarking framework included!.

Most people would argue that a testing framework should not include a benchmarking framework. But using it myself it showed me that both concerns of benchmarking for performance regressions and testing are similar.

Similar enough that I would prefer both of them together.

Most people, me included, are asking: "Should this be split into more?" But seldom, we ask: "Should this be merge into one?"

Or is it proof that CSS has "jumped the shark", adding in a plethora of features that have no place in a "stylesheet"?

In web specs closely rivaled by SVG.

You can pick which one is uglier and you'll be right.

As others pointed out: the fact you can do this in CSS tells you everything you need to know if you consider what CSS is for. Even w/o ever looking at the spec or understanding how it came to be.

i guess if you're someone still stuck on the "web browsers are for displaying static documents" and "css is for prettifying markup" thing, then sure, I bet what you said sounds real witty

    IDDQD

    IDKFA

Looks like it is, though? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47558097

i think ultimately, there also the world moves aroun the player and cameras are just a concept to make the frustrum etc (maybe modern tools do it differently, im a little out of date)

[1] Can Doom Run It? An Adding Machine in Doom https://blog.otterstack.com/posts/202212-doom-calculator/

I think that running Doom on X can also be a criticism of X, certainly the opposite of the intention in some cases. Consider a config mechanicsm, if I prove that I can run Doom on .md or .ini, or notepad.exe, most people should be concerned, not just for bloat, but for security reasons.

The value of some tech is precisely in what it cannot do, not just what it can do.