3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoWhy 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.