I happen to quite like CSS (in comparison to any other layouting system out there), but I really wouldn't characterize it plenty comprehensible.
I'm quite certain there's no human on earth that could reliably predict the outcome of most non-trivial real-life CSS layouts given just the code. And even though the situation has improved a lot, it's still common to have to use clearfixque hacks that definitely weren't envisioned by the commitees.
Isn’t that true for most software? Do you think you can simulate the outcome of a semi complicated Python Codebase just by looking at it? That’s just an intrinsic property of the problem you’re dealing with, adaptive page layout will always be complicated and not easily understandable just by looking at code.
I think I'd have a lot better shot with a semi-complicated Python codebase to be correct. Even with GUI stuff if using something like e.g. Qt box layouts.
Yes, CSS is a lot more powerful than those kinds of systems. Perhaps comparable to constraint satisfaction layouts that tend to be quite surprising.
But even so, there are so many settings and their combined behavior in CSS that it's, for me at least, totally infeasible to try to code much CSS "up-front" without constantly checking the result of the changes. And I don't mind it that much, but I'm quite certain that a more "predictable" equally powerful layouting system is entirely possible.
It could be an interesting challenge to show people some layouts and ask them to produce them using CSS without being able to iterate the results.
I'm quite certain there's no human on earth that could reliably predict the outcome of most non-trivial real-life CSS layouts given just the code. And even though the situation has improved a lot, it's still common to have to use clearfixque hacks that definitely weren't envisioned by the commitees.