There were only two small parts that rubbed me this way, and they may just be related to my own knowledge/interests/biases:
1. The brief diversion about registers vs RAM and the brain analogy seemed a bit silly. I feel like anyone who would be interested in this article would find it completely unnecessary. It was just a tiny paragraph and one doodle though so it didn't really detract from the article.
2. Going the other way, Lin could have spent another few sentences talking about the compositing step and how GPUs enter into the picture (also why some CSS properties are "compositor-only"). I know compositing is tangential to the core of the article, but there were other brief tangents like the Rust stuff so a similar blurb about compositing wouldn't have been out of place (plus I find it super interesting).
Those are my only two nitpicks and the rest of the article did an excellent job threading the needle between informativeness and approachability without being too fluffy or verbose (e.g. Lin rightly didn't waste words explaining what the DOM is).
1. The brief diversion about registers vs RAM and the brain analogy seemed a bit silly. I feel like anyone who would be interested in this article would find it completely unnecessary. It was just a tiny paragraph and one doodle though so it didn't really detract from the article.
2. Going the other way, Lin could have spent another few sentences talking about the compositing step and how GPUs enter into the picture (also why some CSS properties are "compositor-only"). I know compositing is tangential to the core of the article, but there were other brief tangents like the Rust stuff so a similar blurb about compositing wouldn't have been out of place (plus I find it super interesting).
Those are my only two nitpicks and the rest of the article did an excellent job threading the needle between informativeness and approachability without being too fluffy or verbose (e.g. Lin rightly didn't waste words explaining what the DOM is).