I think Alan Kay would disagree with that (and I do too, having written a lot of responsive layout code in PostScript, including a user interface toolkit (The NeWS Toolkit), a hypermedia browser (HyperTIES), and a HyperCard-like PostScript extensible interface builder (HyperLook), and various apps (PizzaTool, SimCity, etc), all that handle window resizing, dynamic responsive layout, and high resolution printing).

See his answer to the question "Should web browsers have stuck to being document viewers?" (And the ensuing discussion.)

You have to log in to see the replies to his reply, which includes a discussion about JAM and NeWS and PostScript based browsers and rendering.

https://www.quora.com/Should-web-browsers-have-stuck-to-bein...

>Should web browsers have stuck to being document viewers?

https://twitter.com/kocienda/status/1355344814166876163?s=21

>Alan Kay, Still trying to learn how to think better

>Actually quite the opposite, if “document” means an imitation of old static text media (and later including pictures, and audio and video recordings).

>It was being willing to settle for an overly simple text format and formatting scheme — “for convenience” — that started the web media architecture off in entirely the wrong direction (including the too simple reference scheme c.f. Doug Engelbart and Ted Nelson). Circa early 90s, it had the look and feel of an atavistic hack. I expected that Netscape would fix this rather than just try to dominate what was there (I expected a better architecture both for “thinking about media in the age of computing” and also something not like “an app” but more like an operating system to deal with the actual systems requirements, demands, and scalings of the world-wide Internet-in-progress).

>It’s both surprisingly and dismayingly difficult to get people — especially computerists — to criticize the web and the web browsers — even more so perhaps today.

>This is despite the glaring fact that the interactive media provided by the web and browsers has always been a hefty and qualitative subset of the media on the very personal computers that run the web browsers.

>[...]

>This led to a “sad realization” that sending a data structure to a server is a terrible idea if the degrees of freedom needed on the sending side are large.

>And eventually, this led to a “happy realization”, that sending a program to a server is a very good idea if the degrees of freedom needed on the sending side are large.

>John Warnock and Martin Newell were experimenting with a simple flexible language that could express arbitrary resolution independent images — called “JAM” (for “John And Martin” — and it was realized that sending JAM programs — i.e. “real objects” to the printer was a much better idea than sending a data structure.

>This is because a universal interpreter can both be quite small and also can have more degrees of freedom than any data structure (that is not a program). The program has to be run in a protected address space in the printer computer, but it can be granted access to a bit-buffer, and whatever it does to it can then be printed out “blindly”.

>This provides a much better match up between a desktop publishing system (which will want to print on any of the printers available, and shouldn’t have to know about their resolutions and other properties), and a printer (which shouldn’t have to know anything about the app that made the document).

>“JAM” eventually became Postscript (but that’s another story).

>Key Point: “sending a program, not a data structure” is a very big idea (and also scales really well if some thought is put into just how the program is set up).

>[...]

(Log in to Quora to see the entire discussion.)