> All of these can be described as being explicitly about collections of data of specific types. This isn’t differentiating, you’re still describing all APIs.

> All of these can be described as being explicitly about collections of data of specific types. This isn’t differentiating, you’re still describing all APIs. Maybe my usage of 'explicit' was unclear. Here is an example of a primitive which is explicitly about storing/moving collections of data, independent of what that data is used for: glBufferData, glClearBufferfv, glGetBufferParameteriv, glMapBufferRange. Firebase and OpenCV I could maybe see having explicit data constructs; Instagram sounds hugely unlikely. And saying that three.js is explicitly about moving data around is ridiculous: it's core is about 3d graphics concepts, like coordinate systems, geometries, materials, and cameras. The only time where it talks about raw data in the same way are a small number of classes that need to be extremely efficient, so they compromise and break the abstraction to WebGL, making reference to its primitives. > Three.js is built on top of WebGL, it doesn’t do 3d graphics without WebGL Not at all true. It's architected to be independent of WebGL. When you use it you can construct a WebGLRenderer or a CanvasRenderer and get 3D graphics with either (obviously WebGLRenderer is going to be far more efficient since it uses the GPU, but it is in no way 'more 3d'). > Saying that WebGL is about data is neither supporting the argument that WebGL is about 2D graphics nor refuting the argument that WebGL is about 3D graphics. I should have clarified the connection: I saw the argument that it's about 2D graphics is being one way of getting at a more significant point: it's not really about 3D graphics as much as people typically think. Which was my shared point.