4 ms·
I mean, these kinds of things should work without highly paid devs like googlers. I have seen a lot of WebGL projects on HN and they always have had issues on s
by kbumsik 6y ago
I mean, these kinds of things should work without highly paid devs like googlers. I have seen a lot of WebGL projects on HN and they always have had issues on some recent devices.
The biggest problem with the WebGL compatibility issue is that it is unpredictable. We don't know which devices work until we open the page. Maybe I am expecting too much, but this degree of inconsistency shouldn't happen to hobby projects neither.
- rewq4321 6y agoI've never had problems with three.js, which is what most people use for WebGL-powered content. Are you claiming that there's less effort in coding up a native graphics program that works across all platforms? Certainly native has the edge on performance (WebGPU will shorten the gap a bit), but on ease of multi-device compatability? I could be convinced, but it seems hard to believe. The whole idea of the browser (these days) is to make cross-platform stuff easier to develop.
- rikroots 6y agoThe demo seems to be built on top of three.js - I can spot lots of THREE tags in the bundled javascript file.
- iainmerrick 6y agoI think most of this is just WebGL 1 (AKA OpenGL ES 2) versus WebGL 2 (AKA OpenGL ES 3). If you restrict yourself to the basic parts of WebGL 1 your app will work almost everywhere, as compatibility is excellent on all recent phones and OSes. There’s a lot of nice stuff in WebGL 2 (eg float textures, vertex textures) but as soon as you try to use it you either sacrifice compatibility on a bunch of devices, or you have to check for various extensions to try to figure out what’s going to work, and try to fall back gracefully if possible.