4 ms·

I see, I also look forward to Three.js / WebGL stack to become a suitable replacement. These are exciting times.

• pjmlp 9y ago
  For that WebGL needs to be able to offer the same feature set as native 3D APIs, which will never happen due to security and the new direction of graphics programming. It only a suitable replacement for those not requiring more than what OpenGL ES 3.0 offers.
  • pcwalton 9y ago
    > For that WebGL needs to be able to offer the same feature set as native 3D APIs, which will never happen due to security and the new direction of graphics programming. I work with many of the people involved in the Web GPU effort, and I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear that they aren't actually working on what they're working on! This is just silly.
    • pjmlp 9y ago
      Silly is pretending WebGL will ever match 1:1 the capabilities of native graphics APIs.
      • pcwalton 9y ago
        It is absolutely a goal to match Vulkan/D3D12/Metal with the new Web GPU efforts. If you're talking about matching every single feature in every API ever, of course no API can do that; no "native" API does that either. There are always gaps around the edges where some API has features others don't (e.g. conservative rasterization support is spotty). But general feature parity with the new generation of APIs is the target. I'm going to the W3C Web GPU meeting next week to talk about just that…
        • pjmlp 9y ago
          I like WebGL, just don't like having it lacking features like geometry and compute shaders, or having to manually white list the GPUs on devices where native applications execute without problems. Looking forward to the outcome of W3C Web GPU meeting.