I disagree. JavaScript historically has always offered backward compatibility. > Backwards compatibility is important because of the large number of browsers d

I disagree. JavaScript historically has always offered backward compatibility. > Backwards compatibility is important because of the large number of browsers deployed and the wide variety of versions of those browsers [0]. This may be the reasoning behind offering backwards compatibility. Also, according to the GitHub page [1] the fallbacks are WebGL2, and WebGL 1, and if neither of those work, only then will it use the CPU when in the browser. I find this to be quite acceptable. After all, it is JavaScript! [0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4937245/why-is-javascript-backwards-compatible-to-a-fault/4937292#4937292 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4937245/why-is-javascrip... [1] https://github.com/gpujs/gpu.js/wiki/Quick-Concepts#fallback https://github.com/gpujs/gpu.js/wiki/Quick-Concepts#fallback