4 ms·

The ease-of-use of OpenGL meets the performance of React.

rat9988 7y ago
Isn't it the other way around? Or do you mean the worst of both world? Edit: Think about it, the second option is the most plausible.
gunn 7y ago
Performance looks good: https://react-vertex.com/demo-attenuated-light/ https://react-vertex.com/demo-attenuated-light/ Ease-of-use looks good: https://github.com/sghall/react-vertex/blob/master/demos/AttenuatedLight/Scene.js https://github.com/sghall/react-vertex/blob/master/demos/Att... Looks excellent actually.
- csande17 7y ago
  Rendering a single static 3D object lit by one point light isn't much of an achievement these days -- I'd be curious to see how this performs with hundreds/thousands of elements moving around on the screen at once. My experience with React suggests the answer is "not well." (But I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that point!)
  - gunn 7y ago
    For sure it would be nice to see some stress tests of performance. From my experience with React, if it's used properly so that the entire component tree isn't rendered every frame, I would expect the overhead of using to be almost nil. You can see in the examples the author using React.memo for this.
    - yoklov 7y ago
      Sure, but you can't really avoid rerendering every frame with OpenGL. (Not without a lot of tricky caching, at least, which has it's own costs). Not saying this is impractical (Personally, I wouldn't bet on it, but I'm sure it's fine for some things), so much as that the cost model here is fundamentally different.
      - gunn 7y ago
        The WebGL view might rerender every frame, the react component tree doesn't have to.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - JTenerife 7y ago
    Agreed that this is trivial model. Regarding React: In many webgl use-cases UI-framework overhead can be neglected as the user interacts either with the scene or the UI rendered by the framework. The browser doesn't usually need to update the DOM and the scene in one frame.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      I think the question here is how well React Hooks and their reconciliation perform "at scale". What may not be a problem with a couple of 2D UI elements may turn into a disaster in a non-trivial 3D scene.
gridlockd 7y ago
I got a chuckle out of this remark, but this isn't like using WebGL at all. It seems like a very nice-to-use abstraction, albeit limited. React performance may be a problem with less trivial scenes, but if you just want to get some 3D model on the screen it may be entirely sufficient.

Isn't it the other way around? Or do you mean the worst of both world? Edit: Think about it, the second option is the most plausible.

gunn 7y ago

Performance looks good: https://react-vertex.com/demo-attenuated-light/ https://react-vertex.com/demo-attenuated-light/ Ease-of-use looks good: https://github.com/sghall/react-vertex/blob/master/demos/AttenuatedLight/Scene.js https://github.com/sghall/react-vertex/blob/master/demos/Att... Looks excellent actually.

csande17 7y ago
Rendering a single static 3D object lit by one point light isn't much of an achievement these days -- I'd be curious to see how this performs with hundreds/thousands of elements moving around on the screen at once. My experience with React suggests the answer is "not well." (But I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that point!)
- gunn 7y ago
  For sure it would be nice to see some stress tests of performance. From my experience with React, if it's used properly so that the entire component tree isn't rendered every frame, I would expect the overhead of using to be almost nil. You can see in the examples the author using React.memo for this.
  - yoklov 7y ago
    Sure, but you can't really avoid rerendering every frame with OpenGL. (Not without a lot of tricky caching, at least, which has it's own costs). Not saying this is impractical (Personally, I wouldn't bet on it, but I'm sure it's fine for some things), so much as that the cost model here is fundamentally different.
    - gunn 7y ago
      The WebGL view might rerender every frame, the react component tree doesn't have to.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- JTenerife 7y ago
  Agreed that this is trivial model. Regarding React: In many webgl use-cases UI-framework overhead can be neglected as the user interacts either with the scene or the UI rendered by the framework. The browser doesn't usually need to update the DOM and the scene in one frame.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    I think the question here is how well React Hooks and their reconciliation perform "at scale". What may not be a problem with a couple of 2D UI elements may turn into a disaster in a non-trivial 3D scene.

gridlockd 7y ago

I got a chuckle out of this remark, but this isn't like using WebGL at all. It seems like a very nice-to-use abstraction, albeit limited. React performance may be a problem with less trivial scenes, but if you just want to get some 3D model on the screen it may be entirely sufficient.