Cassius VS jakt

FWIW, while there are unfortunately only very few attempts at formalizing CSS, there's at least an unofficial, unreviewed (?), partial formal semantics for (CSS 2-era) float layout based on z3 SMT and Racket you can take a look at to get a flavor, though it isn't receiving further development.

[1]: https://github.com/uwplse/cassius

[2]: https://pavpanchekha.com/blog/css-floats.html

Do we need W3C anymore? The HTML 5 specification has been created by WHATWG for many years now, with W3C only rubber-stamping historic WHATWG versions until 2017 or so. SVG2 is going nowhere, and so isn't MathML, leaving the CSS working group as W3C's remaining point of influence over the Web. CSS is regarded as so poor and overdone a specification that the only two external projects for a formal specification have failed or remained woefully incomplete (1, 2).

1. CSS should've been split into app-y styles and doc-y styles a looong time ago; meaning that when you need JavaScript to make use of a feature anyway, there's no point in using CSS and it's better to set styles, layout using JavaScript rather than bloat CSS. The Houdini API was on the right track years ago.

2. The CSS WG at W3C must deliver formal specification rather than the prose they're writing up now. For an idea how a (partial) formal spec for CSS rendering looks like, see eg. [1], [2] (with limitations).

The one way complexity that both W3C and WHATWG have delivered over the past 15 years with complete lack of mental discipline due to financial dependency/job security will be a major source of confusion for generations to cone, and will not be looked at favorably.

[1]: https://github.com/uwplse/cassius

[2]: https://github.com/lmeyerov/sc

There's this cool project using z3 (and racket) for formalizing CSS rendering [1] I never came around to lift for anything. Maybe someone else interested in leading the web out of the dark ages and give W3C's CSS WG an idea what we expect from them will.

[1]: https://github.com/uwplse/cassius

FWIW, I know two (partial, kinda) formal specifications of CSS normal flow and float layout, both of which are finished ie dead projects:

[1]: https://lmeyerov.github.io/projects/pbrowser/pubfiles/paper....

[2]: https://github.com/uwplse/cassius

(not counting the 1990s constraint CSS effort).

The first was merely part of a parallel compiler project and also covers table layout, whereas the second is a Racket (Scheme) program to formulate the HTML doc and CSS rules as a theory for submitting to z3 SMT to solve all kinds of decision problems (it can also produce a rendering).

Not sure that's very helpful; it would be cool if W3C can invest some time into better specs (not just prose).

SerenityOS is doing exactly that:

https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/tree/master/Ladybird

I also like their Jakt programming language:

https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt

Though I'm more enthusiastic about Redox (doing it in Rust):

https://gitlab.redox-os.org/redox-os/redox/

It's very opinionated and SerenityOS-focused, but the language Jakt ( https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt ) transpiles to C++, has memory safety and some very neat ideas for readability.

I love Rust, but its model and specifics would make it difficult to learn how to write code in other languages.

For low-level code, I think Carbon may fill that niche in the future. If it doesn't, C++ may be a good candidate once up-to-date books have been written and compilers actually support the modern spec. Classrooms/guides would need to move away from the still-lingering "C++ is C with classes" approach and use the standard library before that can be a reality, but this book[0] by Bjarne Stroustrup himself demonstrates the future C++ _could_ have if all the modern language features become usable.

In business, C++ will still be the domain of ancient clusterfucks compiled by MSVC++ 6 in many areas, similar to how most Java code is still built around Java 8 because that was the most recent stable version for many projects' lifecycle (and Oracle's decision to only ship JRE 8 to consumers doesn't help) and how .NET 4 is still taught in schools because the new and scary dotnet tool doesn't map 1-to-1 with the old way of working. I can't imagine microcontroller toolkits supporting a modern version of _any_ language in the first place.

However, if more people would learn modern C++ (or a replacement, like Carbon), I think this class of programming languages can have the same growth and hype Rust has enjoyed for the past years.

I'm keeping my eye on Carbon and Zig. Google's influence has managed to push Go to the forefront despite its many quirks, and Zig seems to be focused on doing "C, but right" rather than "C++, but right" which so far is looking pretty promising.

It's also fun to see Jakt[1] being developed in real time; I don't think it's a language that will be useful for production software any time soon, but on the other hand it's a language that actually produces binaries reliably (unlike pre-alpha Carbon or pre-release Zig, the latter exposing many problems after switching to a self-hosted compiler).

[0]: https://www.stroustrup.com/tour3.html

[1]: https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt

About php, I have no problem of rewriting whole game for performance reasons once it is done and popular in low level language like https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt but I think for now php is good and sufficient.

Jakt, pretty well designed (lots of ideas stolen from ML/Rust), but very immature

I think this thread might be interesting to the people here. The guy eventually started working on his own safe language, Jakt: https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt