3 ms·

There's plenty of stuff if you want to go native or are you just talking web technologies? FWIW there's tons of things build on OpenGL ES 2(all of Android for

There's plenty of stuff if you want to go native or are you just talking web technologies? FWIW there's tons of things build on OpenGL ES 2(all of Android for instance). If you're going to write something to run on a wide range of platforms you're either going to deal with least-common denominator(GLES2) or write per-platform layers(like we'd do on consoles/etc).

pcwalton 10y ago
> If you're going to write something to run on a wide range of platforms you're either going to deal with least-common denominator(GLES2) or write per-platform layers(like we'd do on consoles/etc). You say that like it's a good thing! The point of WebGL is to put that pain on the browser vendor. OpenGL ES 2 is incredibly limited, as you know. Yeah, you can do a lot with it, but there's a ton of stuff you can't do (tessellation, compute, image load/store, heck, even unbounded loops in shaders). Why should the Web be limited to that?
- vvanders 10y ago
  I definitely wasn't saying it was a good thing, just the reality in the graphics space. I just don't see how you push it to the web. You're forcing device capabilites onto users and the web always lags well behind what's happening in the native domain.
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    I don't understand what you're arguing. > You're forcing device capabilites onto users I guess this is an argument about portability? That's an argument against WebGL at all, not about WebGL 2. Besides, WebGL 2 is targeting an API that's 7 years old at this point. A seven-year-old API is not exactly bleeding edge. > the web always lags well behind what's happening in the native domain Again, you say that as if it were a good thing! It's not! That's what this is trying to fix!
- fulafel 10y ago
  Why consider just WebGL 1 (ES 2 feature set)? WebGL 2 is already shipping, even in wildly optimistic scenarios any successor is going to take many years to surpass it in browser support. In WebGL 2 you get better support for compute, integers, dynamic loops, halfway to tessellation (transform feedback), etc. And like with WebGL 1, more features will come incrementally as WebGL extensions.

pcwalton 10y ago

> If you're going to write something to run on a wide range of platforms you're either going to deal with least-common denominator(GLES2) or write per-platform layers(like we'd do on consoles/etc). You say that like it's a good thing! The point of WebGL is to put that pain on the browser vendor. OpenGL ES 2 is incredibly limited, as you know. Yeah, you can do a lot with it, but there's a ton of stuff you can't do (tessellation, compute, image load/store, heck, even unbounded loops in shaders). Why should the Web be limited to that?

vvanders 10y ago
I definitely wasn't saying it was a good thing, just the reality in the graphics space. I just don't see how you push it to the web. You're forcing device capabilites onto users and the web always lags well behind what's happening in the native domain.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  I don't understand what you're arguing. > You're forcing device capabilites onto users I guess this is an argument about portability? That's an argument against WebGL at all, not about WebGL 2. Besides, WebGL 2 is targeting an API that's 7 years old at this point. A seven-year-old API is not exactly bleeding edge. > the web always lags well behind what's happening in the native domain Again, you say that as if it were a good thing! It's not! That's what this is trying to fix!
fulafel 10y ago
Why consider just WebGL 1 (ES 2 feature set)? WebGL 2 is already shipping, even in wildly optimistic scenarios any successor is going to take many years to surpass it in browser support. In WebGL 2 you get better support for compute, integers, dynamic loops, halfway to tessellation (transform feedback), etc. And like with WebGL 1, more features will come incrementally as WebGL extensions.