3 ms·
A bunch of programmers involved in designing WebGL bullying Microsoft. Really? There are 2 issues that Microsoft raised: 1. Sending arbitrary GPU shaders can
by kkowalczyk 15y ago
A bunch of programmers involved in designing WebGL bullying Microsoft. Really?
There are 2 issues that Microsoft raised:
1. Sending arbitrary GPU shaders can slow down GPUs.
2. Using standard, public, official graphics APIs provided by Windows might crash buggy drivers.
Re 1: Adobe does that in Flash, Microsoft is planning to do that in Silverlight 5. WebGL isn't proposing anything that Microsoft isn't doing already. If you think WebGL is not thought out properly in that regard, neither is stuff that Microsoft is doing.
Re 2: I'm really dumbfounded how Microsoft can even make this argument with a straight face. They've spent the last 15 years designing and improving DirectX but they don't really want you to use those APIs? WebGL folks can't fix the drivers, Microsoft and Intel and ATI and Nvidia can and should, regardless of WebGL.
Finally, how do you propose that we vet the standard? What criteria do you propose to decide that WebGL standard is good enough?
Your position (that WebGL is not good enough) cannot be disproved because you don't provide any objective criteria to decide what is "good enough". It's non-constructive hand-waving.
On the other hand, WebGL is based on OpenGL, an API that has been vetted in the past 20 years, has proven to work and as far as I can tell, WebGL folks are highly competent people, both in 3D and security space.
- kenjackson 15y agoA bunch of programmers involved in designing WebGL bullying Microsoft. Really? It's not just a bunch of programmers. It is a working group intended to represent the recommendation for an important standard. Or at least I thought so. Maybe not? Your position (that WebGL is not good enough) I never said that. Finally, how do you propose that we vet the standard? What criteria do you propose to decide that WebGL standard is good enough? Standards should be based on techniques and technologies that are fairly well known. While there will always be debates about what goes in a standard, the arguments should almost always be able to point to existing implementations of a given technology. Especially in areas where there might be controversy or concern. What I do NOT like is a standard body criticizing an organization for not picking up a standard, if the standard hasn't really been vetted or tested yet. If you want to push a non-vetted technology, go ahead, and let Mozilla and Chrome pick it up, but don't criticize those who don't at the onset. Now in three years, once the kinks have been ironed out, then I think you can make the claim that the standard is solid -- everyone on board, but at this point I think its not fair to push anyone to implement it.