CSS is DOOMed

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Rendering classic Doom’s 3D visuals largely through CSS in a browser highlights how far web styling has evolved from its roots in simple document formatting. Commenters marvel at the technical ingenuity and browser performance (with Firefox often praised), but many see it as evidence that CSS has become an overgrown, committee-designed system that now blurs the line between presentation and programming. The project prompts broader questions about where logic should live in web stacks, potential security implications of a Turing-complete stylesheet layer, and whether alternative UI layout models (like Qt or GTK) are ultimately better suited for complex interfaces.

Overall reaction to the CSS Doom demo

  • Many find the project “wild”, “beautiful”, and “seriously impressive,” especially the 3D tricks and viewport culling.
  • Several note it’s surprisingly playable in modern browsers, including on phones, though devices heat up.
  • Some argue it’s a classic “because we can” hack that exposes where the web platform is going rather than a practical technique.

Debate over CSS design and role

  • Some question whether this proves CSS is good, or that it has “jumped the shark” by accreting features far beyond styling.
  • Critics say CSS was designed for documents, not UIs, and that UI frameworks like Qt/GTK provide more coherent layout systems.
  • Others counter that CSS keeps improving (e.g., flexbox) and ask what credible, widely deployable alternative exists.

CSS as a programming-like system

  • Commenters note CSS now has conditionals, math functions, and can express complex logic, with examples like an x86 emulator in CSS.
  • Some like the declarative nature and easy introspection; others fear control flow will create “horrors” and inversion of abstraction.
  • One example is a visibility “if” hack using paused animations and negative delays due to limited browser support for if().

Browser support and performance

  • The demo runs best for some in Firefox (thanks to GPU-heavy rendering), more choppily in Chromium, and surprisingly well in Safari mobile.
  • Certain features (e.g., scroll snapping, key-handling APIs) behave inconsistently across browsers; some demos fail in Brave.

User experience, controls, and CSS “hacks”

  • Key mappings conflict with browser shortcuts (e.g., Alt firing navigation), and strafing controls feel awkward.
  • People experiment with “wallhacks” by deleting or restyling .wall elements (e.g., partial opacity).
  • CSS scroll snapping is praised as immersive but also reported to cause motion sickness for some.

Security and “Can it run Doom?” meta-discussion

  • Some worry that near–Turing-complete CSS broadens the attack surface and complicates CSP and detection, though details remain unclear.
  • Running Doom on arbitrary systems is seen both as proof of power/Turing-completeness and as criticism of unnecessary complexity: sometimes value lies in what a technology cannot do.

AI involvement in the project

  • The author used an AI model to approximate the game loop; one commenter fixates on gameplay inaccuracies.
  • Others note the project’s focus is rendering in CSS, not perfect game fidelity.
  • A minority express strong hostility toward AI in general, calling it socially harmful.