3 ms·

Sorry, that's actually only true for WebCL. https://www.khronos.org/webcl/public-mailing-list/archives/1612/msg00001.php https://www.khronos.org/webcl/public-m

Sorry, that's actually only true for WebCL. https://www.khronos.org/webcl/public-mailing-list/archives/1612/msg00001.php https://www.khronos.org/webcl/public-mailing-list/archives/1... According to this post the future lies in WebVulkan - which is both computing and graphics. On the other hand people from the big companies including Google and Apple are working on WebGPU. That said, and having worked on a complex WebGL project myself where my colleagues were complaining all the time how bad WebGL is (sorry, won't search the references for that though :P), I wonder how there can possibly be any future for it.

MaxBarraclough 8y ago
Ah yes, WebCL. A web standard too far. I recall Mozilla saying they wouldn't bother implementing it as people could just use compute shaders in WebGL, but my understanding is that this isn't really practical even now, years later. From a quick google, I don't think there's really any such thing as 'WebVulkan'. Following the discussion above, I don't see that it would really be a good idea anyway. Wrong level of abstraction. Someone above linked to this article on 'GPU for the Web' (which I presume is what 'WebGPU' refers to), which as you say looks like it might be the successor to WebGL - https://www.w3.org/community/gpu/ https://www.w3.org/community/gpu/