

Collection of CSS Creations - luzon19
http://cssdeck.com/

======
kernelPanicked
I haven't been this impressed with CSS since csszengarden.com.

However, I have my doubts about animations. Keeps giving me flashbacks to
ActionScript...and I already see comments indicating the site made their
browser crash.

~~~
novalis
You used to dev in actionscript to do animation in flash and it crashed your
browser everytime ?

~~~
kernelPanicked
I'm not sure if you want clarification, or you're a Flash fan and want to
imply an ad hominem. I try to follow the principle of charity on the internet
so here's clarification.

Flash seems like a crash-prone plugin. I recall Apple had data to back that up
when they pulled support for it on iOS. Since I want assurance that my web
code will run reliably in as many places it is deployed as possible, I don't
look fondly on Flash/ActionScript (the old IDE wasn't my favorite either, no
idea how much that has improved over the years). I actually love the idea of a
write-once-run-anywhere rich media platform, but in practice Flash had too
many downsides, at least for my work.

I'm not sure animations are a priority I'd set for CSS. I think it has bigger
fish to fry. People want to push CSS toward being more of a script language
than a markup language, hence the new Webkit variables. I seem to hold an
unpopular view but I think these things will complicate and possibly make CSS
less attractive to use. I'd rather see CSS be improved syntatically,
incorporating features natively like those SASS gives you. (EDIT: to clarify
the apparent contradiction, SASS has "variables" but they are really immutable
constants, very different from what the CSS var RQs specify)

~~~
novalis
Let me explain, I found it comical that you could actually be the worst flash
dev ever, based on what you stated. It was the best interpretation, without
touching the irrational side of it.

"Keeps giving me flashbacks to ActionScript". That is a weird variation for a
sort of, by now, stereptyped tirade on the subject of Flash and that has some
implications. But I'll get to that in a minute.

First, this is what you were trying to recall. The "data to back that up", I
am sorry to say, the data doesn't "back that up". It was a WWDC 2009 keynote
address by a apple senior vp that talked about some data, pinned on flash
through biased analysis. It was data taken from desktop browsers crash
reports. It is at the foundation of a bias that is useful for some even today.

The bias is explained in detail in a daringfireball.net post: "Flash’s number
and severity of crashing bugs could well be somewhat low and it would still
account for a large number of total crashes because it’s actually used all the
time — by any Mac user with Flash content playing in a web page."

<http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple_adobe_flash> A notoriously pro apple
site with a balanced point of view on this matter, you probably should read it
to get a better understanding, it will save you a lot of irritation and will
probably ground you in reality on the matter.

Also, I don't know what sort of "ad hominem" coming from a "Flash fan" you saw
there, but that line just speaks volumes in a passive aggressive way. You see
I had to use the charity principle in the previous post too. That pointed me
to be reading from a comically poor flash dev that had actually used
"ActionScript" language and it crashed all the time, and was now having a
verbal go at the past opressor dev plat. I could understand that, some devs
are simply terrible.

The other option would be to consider that you are oblivious to Flash users
never contacting with the code, "ActionScript" itself. You mentioned it in a
specific way. See, I know that to be biased because there is actually no
particular thing that will make "ActionScript" code crash just because it is
ActionScript.

You most likely will get a lot of crashes from Flash IDE "designed" .swf files
that don't have a line of human coded ActionScript in them. But you went
there.

So I had to go the other way around it and see what you were on about while
trying to find a character that would fit the odd meme based statements you
displayed towards the subject.

But thank you for applying the charity principle ex post facto your original
post. Clarification is always the best path.

~~~
kernelPanicked
Hey, you know, you do make some good points, and that was a good article.
You're really astoundingly condescending and irritable, but I'm sure you're a
smart person.

At the end of the day, I'll say "my bad" for conflating Flash and
ActionScript. They're not the same thing at all. I am a frequent user of
Javascript both in the browser and servers, so I look fondly on most
ECMAScript variants. The language is distinct from its runtime environment,
which is where I find my gripes. I'll also admit that my past use of Flash is
both dated and was closer to a "script kiddie" experience than what I do now,
and while I doubt I was the worst developer ever, I was probably making bad
decisions by both of our standards today.

But therein lies, to me, the real problem with Flash. For the sake of
constructive discussion, I will just concede all your points about the
stability of the plugin -- since you did make good points about Apple's
accusation, let's just grant the plugin is refined, secure, and stable. I
think we can agree the easy publishing of the web enables bad developers all
the time. They just write their shitty code, run it through bad or no QA, FTP
it somewhere and boom, users are downloading and running it. This is bad
enough with the HTML/CSS/JS stack. Flash exacerbates the problem by expanding
the API handles available for shitty devs to put their shitty hands on. From
the "user" point of view, where user is not either of us but someone who only
wants technology to work for them, Flash comes with a lot more bad treatment
than most things on the web. Dancing hamsters merely offend; bad Javascript
can break a page load; but it takes a powerful plugin like Flash to really
make your computer grind gears.

And that gets to the crux of my argument -- CSS animations. When you start
adding powerful features like that to a web technology, you know it will be
abused because the web is full of shitty developers. Style sheets using these
features are already crashing people's browsers (and I looked at the source
for those animations -- I don't think these guys are even hacks at all). That
shouldn't be happening. The world needs a stable stack of web technologies
that minimize the damage bad developers can do. And this is just talking about
poor code; you know the danger that a sweeping API poses in the hand of a
black hat...big nod to ActiveX there. I know, the assertion that we should
limit technology to account for the lowest common denominator sounds
ridiculous, but do you really know of any way to stop bad developers from
getting their code to run on user's devices? They seem to persist no matter
what!

Eh, I could go on. But no one is going to see this stuff at this point. I
guess we'll see what the future holds, but I think bottom line...Flash had a
good 10+ year run. It was a net benefit to the web. But there are things about
it we ought not repeat, especially in other mature, dependable technologies,
like CSS.

------
rcknight
This site repeatedly made my browser hang (Chrome 20 on windows)

~~~
binarydreams
I should have added some optimizations, but I promise to add them tomorrow. So
please check back tomorrow again. Apologies for the crashes.

------
JoeCortopassi
Cool site, but I can't leave a comment on any of the demos. Says my email and
website aren't valid.

~~~
binarydreams
not sure why that would be happening. will take a look into the problem.

although you can signup on cssdeck with your twitter/github accounts and then
comment (takes few seconds).

------
vijayr
many in the list are good, this one is really nice
<http://cssdeck.com/item/536/path-menu>

