Code that deals with 3D space tends to look similar. Design patterns that work in such contexts tend to be common sense.

Three.js can make far better looking results currently because it's a full-fledged, mature 3D engine. Famous isn't designed to compete with that. It's really intended to sort of merge DOM and 3D content so you can use both in a unified manner.

Also, trashing someone else's product while plugging your own in the same breath is simply poor taste.

* Also, trashing someone else's product while plugging your own in the same breath is simply poor taste. *

Tone says a bit about people at famo.us

I'm not an employee at Famous, nor have I ever worked for them in any capacity whatsoever.

In fact, I found Famous via working on a personal project that heavily utilized the Three.js CSS3DRenderer.

While I love Three (and by extension MrDoob) very much, the experience left me with a healthy appreciation of what the Famous team is going for. I've tried to do the very same thing myself (fuse DOM and WebGL), and quickly realized all of the pitfalls involved.

Even though I am a contributor to ThreeJS I do not consider it my own project, it is MrDoob's project.

rl3 was referring to the link to your site.

I expect there is a decent amount of back and forth. Graphics demos of different tech in an era always tend to look similar for a number of reasons (tackling similar problems, wanting to outshine a competing similar demo, culture of the time etc.)

I know MrDoob was inspired to duplicate the Famo'us periodic table demo in Three.js/CSS and in the other direction, well its goddam MrDoob, you can't work in web graphics and not be inspired by him.