CSS is DOOMed

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

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.