4 ms·

Related reading re. Vulkan "What a WebGL2 successor could look like and why it can’t be WebVulkan" - https://floooh.github.io/2016/08/13/webgl-next.html https:

Related reading re. Vulkan "What a WebGL2 successor could look like and why it can’t be WebVulkan" - https://floooh.github.io/2016/08/13/webgl-next.html https://floooh.github.io/2016/08/13/webgl-next.html See also the the author's sketch of a next-gen web graphics API on top of WebGL (https://floooh.github.io/2016/10/24/altai.html https://floooh.github.io/2016/10/24/altai.html) which is (perhaps unsurprisingl) broadly similar to the sketch given the article (minus command queues, shader libraries, ...).

phire 10y ago
Everyone here (including me) is upset that Apple are refusing to support Vulkan (or even improve their existing OpenGL support). They haven't even made a public statement. And now we get the news that they are working on another API. It doesn't really matter that the new API is targeting a completely different market to Vulkan. It doesn't really matter that a WebVulkan can't really exist in the first place. It doesn't matter if this is probally the correct starting point for a NextGen web graphics API. It doesn't even matter that the team at apple proposing this API is not the same team that would be responsible implementing Vulkan in OSX. People just want Vulkan on MacOS and/or IOS.
- nicky0 10y ago
  And you're going to derail every thread until you get it?
- MBCook 10y ago
  So, you're mad about a desktop API choice and therefore any discussion involving graphics API and Apple in any context must devolve into a fight over what you care about? Not the topic at hand even if it is "probably the correct starting point for a NextGen web graphics API"? The Apple employees posting in here posting some really interesting stuff, but it's all being drowned out by this noise that has little to do with the topic at hand.
- simonh 10y ago
  > It doesn't matter if this is probally the correct starting point for a NextGen web graphics API. Scads of this thread are giving me that signal loud and clear. Not HN at it's best.
pippy 10y ago
Vulkan is a horrible choice for a web standard. Their hardware support is abysmal, the only graphics hardware that supports it was made from 2012 on wards. Even then a decent chunk of the support is experimental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulkan_(API) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulkan_(API) Vulkan is great, but you need to think about the cross compatibility of the web.
- oblio 10y ago
  We're talking about a web standard. Something that will take 5+ years to be implemented fully on all platforms, and even then might still be behind feature flags. If Vulkan took this long to adopt partially, how long do you think a new 3D + Web standard will actually take? My money's in 10 years.

phire 10y ago

Everyone here (including me) is upset that Apple are refusing to support Vulkan (or even improve their existing OpenGL support). They haven't even made a public statement. And now we get the news that they are working on another API. It doesn't really matter that the new API is targeting a completely different market to Vulkan. It doesn't really matter that a WebVulkan can't really exist in the first place. It doesn't matter if this is probally the correct starting point for a NextGen web graphics API. It doesn't even matter that the team at apple proposing this API is not the same team that would be responsible implementing Vulkan in OSX. People just want Vulkan on MacOS and/or IOS.

nicky0 10y ago
And you're going to derail every thread until you get it?
MBCook 10y ago
So, you're mad about a desktop API choice and therefore any discussion involving graphics API and Apple in any context must devolve into a fight over what you care about? Not the topic at hand even if it is "probably the correct starting point for a NextGen web graphics API"? The Apple employees posting in here posting some really interesting stuff, but it's all being drowned out by this noise that has little to do with the topic at hand.
simonh 10y ago
> It doesn't matter if this is probally the correct starting point for a NextGen web graphics API. Scads of this thread are giving me that signal loud and clear. Not HN at it's best.

pippy 10y ago

Vulkan is a horrible choice for a web standard. Their hardware support is abysmal, the only graphics hardware that supports it was made from 2012 on wards. Even then a decent chunk of the support is experimental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulkan_(API) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulkan_(API) Vulkan is great, but you need to think about the cross compatibility of the web.

oblio 10y ago
We're talking about a web standard. Something that will take 5+ years to be implemented fully on all platforms, and even then might still be behind feature flags. If Vulkan took this long to adopt partially, how long do you think a new 3D + Web standard will actually take? My money's in 10 years.