9 ms·

To be clear, this article is triggered by the fact that Safari, the only major browser that did not support WebGL2, has landed support a few months ago. This w

To be clear, this article is triggered by the fact that Safari, the only major browser that did not support WebGL2, has landed support a few months ago. This was the major roadblock for WebGL2 acceptance of developpers looking to support all major browsers.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eole666 5y ago
This is excellent news. For years it was the only major browser with no WebGL 2 support : Chrome and Firefox support WebGl 2 since 2017 ... Most WebGL libraries have WebGL 1 fallbacks only to make apps run on Safari.
mrspeaker 5y ago
I can't believe it's actually happening - I was resigned to the fact it was dead. I once (4 years ago, sheesh) made a "Pure-JS, no-build-step-required Minecraft Thing": https://github.com/mrspeaker/webgl2-voxels https://github.com/mrspeaker/webgl2-voxels When I made it I needed to specify it "Requires ES6 modules and WebGL2 support." At the time I was sure WebGL2 was going to be widely available soon and that ES6 modules would probably never be supported!
- myers 5y ago
  Looks great!
- danuker 5y ago
  Wow! A simple 3D game in 425KB. For me, google.com is 1.47MB. It makes you wonder what they put inside.
  - miohtama 5y ago
    This is not the world we wished for, but this is the world we deserve.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      Nah, we don't deserve it. We just don't have a choice at this point until someone is capable of creating an alternative to JavaScript.
      - CamperBob2 5y ago
        Nah, we don't deserve it. We just don't have a choice at this point until someone is capable of creating an alternative to JavaScript. Didn't you mean "an alternative to Google?" Don't blame the tool for the (lack of) craftsmanship.
        encryptluks2 5y ago
        It has nothing to do with Google and everything to do with JavaScript.
      - hmmokidk 5y ago
        The issue isn’t JS. Sites are bloated because cheap/lazy/dont care. Also because ads are bloating and payload size isnmt really thought about much.
        encryptluks2 5y ago
        The issue is JavaScript unless you're talking about people that use BMP image format instead of JPG/SVG.
      - lewisjoe 5y ago
        You are asking for an alternative for browsers and 30 years of evolution. Be careful what you wish for :)
  - grishka 5y ago
    Way too many abstractions.
  - mrspeaker 5y ago
    You got me wondering what was going on - 425Kb seemed pretty high. I imagined there would only be around 50K of non-compressed source code. Turns out the 200Kb+ culprit is the texture atlas I nabbed off the internet: https://github.com/mrspeaker/webgl2-voxels/blob/master/res/mine.png https://github.com/mrspeaker/webgl2-voxels/blob/master/res/m... - I'm only using a handful of cells out of that, I should chop it!
- egeozcan 5y ago
  You know what would be fun? Trying to program a bot to clear all the titles using the same interface as humans (WASD + Mouse + Vision). That could even be a competition.
- Narishma 5y ago
  That looks pretty simple. Is there anything you're doing that wouldn't be possible in WebGL 1?
  - mrspeaker 5y ago
    Nothing at all - rewriting it for WebGL1 would be trivial (if you rely on OES_vertex_array_object being present). But really it was just me learning, and I naively assumed WebGL2.0 would be ready "any day now". The only non-supporting browser was Safari. That was 4+ years ago!
- e12e 5y ago
  Thank you for sharing. Appears you did not pick a license - I'd recommend just releasing under MIT unless you have any particular preferences (it's a well-understood "do what you want" license that I believe is suitable for educational content).
- HNSucksAss 5y ago
jlokier 5y ago
It's worth bearing in mind that the Safari major version and OS version are tied together. Latest Safari cannot be used by users who cannot run the latest MacOS on their hardware, or have reasons not to (such as bricking risk with latest MacOS on old hardware.) (I imagine it's similar with iOS but I'm not sure.)
- Sheepsteak 5y ago
  You can get the latest Safari for Big Sur and Catalina too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_(web_browser)#Safari_15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_(web_browser)#Safari_15
- isodev 5y ago
  This is not correct, you can update to the latest version of Safari on all supported versions of macOS. Currently, Safari 15 is available all the way back to macOS Catalina (from 2019...)
  - nocman 5y ago
    "all the way back" This is part of the problem with the world of computing today. When a software released not quite 2 years and 4 months ago is referred to with the phrase "all the way back". Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping things as up-to-date as is reasonable, but the industry has far too much churn in many areas.
    - chris37879 5y ago
      2019 is _ancient_ in terms of web browsers... What you call churn is actually mostly moving the web platform forward and fixing exploits. There's no way for the modern web to work without the rapidity of development browsers are undergoing.
      - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
        Pretty sure that's the OS we're talking about, macOS Catalina 10.15? I am running it right now, and not pining for the new shininess of the more recent OS releases. If it wasn't still getting security updates, sure (but I've got a few more months, at least).
simion314 5y ago
Does it really work? We are using a WebGl plugin and recently it broke on Safari, we had to detect this new Safari version and downgrade the users to a 2D mode (it was a third party plugin so I can't debug it)
- saurik 5y ago
  That would certainly be a cute trick to look like they are helping but actually be taking a step backward.
truted2 5y ago
I’ve been developing in WebGL for the last year on a Mac and can’t help but notice that Firefox and Chrome have much better performance (fps) than Safari. I would’ve thought Safari on Mac hardware would work best. Does anyone know where these performance differences stem from?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

eole666 5y ago

This is excellent news. For years it was the only major browser with no WebGL 2 support : Chrome and Firefox support WebGl 2 since 2017 ... Most WebGL libraries have WebGL 1 fallbacks only to make apps run on Safari.

mrspeaker 5y ago

I can't believe it's actually happening - I was resigned to the fact it was dead. I once (4 years ago, sheesh) made a "Pure-JS, no-build-step-required Minecraft Thing": https://github.com/mrspeaker/webgl2-voxels https://github.com/mrspeaker/webgl2-voxels When I made it I needed to specify it "Requires ES6 modules and WebGL2 support." At the time I was sure WebGL2 was going to be widely available soon and that ES6 modules would probably never be supported!

myers 5y ago
Looks great!
danuker 5y ago
Wow! A simple 3D game in 425KB. For me, google.com is 1.47MB. It makes you wonder what they put inside.
- miohtama 5y ago
  This is not the world we wished for, but this is the world we deserve.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Nah, we don't deserve it. We just don't have a choice at this point until someone is capable of creating an alternative to JavaScript.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Nah, we don't deserve it. We just don't have a choice at this point until someone is capable of creating an alternative to JavaScript. Didn't you mean "an alternative to Google?" Don't blame the tool for the (lack of) craftsmanship.
      - encryptluks2 5y ago
        It has nothing to do with Google and everything to do with JavaScript.
    - hmmokidk 5y ago
      The issue isn’t JS. Sites are bloated because cheap/lazy/dont care. Also because ads are bloating and payload size isnmt really thought about much.
      - encryptluks2 5y ago
        The issue is JavaScript unless you're talking about people that use BMP image format instead of JPG/SVG.
    - lewisjoe 5y ago
      You are asking for an alternative for browsers and 30 years of evolution. Be careful what you wish for :)
- grishka 5y ago
  Way too many abstractions.
- mrspeaker 5y ago
  You got me wondering what was going on - 425Kb seemed pretty high. I imagined there would only be around 50K of non-compressed source code. Turns out the 200Kb+ culprit is the texture atlas I nabbed off the internet: https://github.com/mrspeaker/webgl2-voxels/blob/master/res/mine.png https://github.com/mrspeaker/webgl2-voxels/blob/master/res/m... - I'm only using a handful of cells out of that, I should chop it!
egeozcan 5y ago
You know what would be fun? Trying to program a bot to clear all the titles using the same interface as humans (WASD + Mouse + Vision). That could even be a competition.
Narishma 5y ago
That looks pretty simple. Is there anything you're doing that wouldn't be possible in WebGL 1?
- mrspeaker 5y ago
  Nothing at all - rewriting it for WebGL1 would be trivial (if you rely on OES_vertex_array_object being present). But really it was just me learning, and I naively assumed WebGL2.0 would be ready "any day now". The only non-supporting browser was Safari. That was 4+ years ago!
e12e 5y ago
Thank you for sharing. Appears you did not pick a license - I'd recommend just releasing under MIT unless you have any particular preferences (it's a well-understood "do what you want" license that I believe is suitable for educational content).
HNSucksAss 5y ago

jlokier 5y ago

It's worth bearing in mind that the Safari major version and OS version are tied together. Latest Safari cannot be used by users who cannot run the latest MacOS on their hardware, or have reasons not to (such as bricking risk with latest MacOS on old hardware.) (I imagine it's similar with iOS but I'm not sure.)

Sheepsteak 5y ago
You can get the latest Safari for Big Sur and Catalina too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_(web_browser)#Safari_15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_(web_browser)#Safari_15
isodev 5y ago
This is not correct, you can update to the latest version of Safari on all supported versions of macOS. Currently, Safari 15 is available all the way back to macOS Catalina (from 2019...)
- nocman 5y ago
  "all the way back" This is part of the problem with the world of computing today. When a software released not quite 2 years and 4 months ago is referred to with the phrase "all the way back". Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping things as up-to-date as is reasonable, but the industry has far too much churn in many areas.
  - chris37879 5y ago
    2019 is _ancient_ in terms of web browsers... What you call churn is actually mostly moving the web platform forward and fixing exploits. There's no way for the modern web to work without the rapidity of development browsers are undergoing.
    - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
      Pretty sure that's the OS we're talking about, macOS Catalina 10.15? I am running it right now, and not pining for the new shininess of the more recent OS releases. If it wasn't still getting security updates, sure (but I've got a few more months, at least).

simion314 5y ago

Does it really work? We are using a WebGl plugin and recently it broke on Safari, we had to detect this new Safari version and downgrade the users to a 2D mode (it was a third party plugin so I can't debug it)

saurik 5y ago
That would certainly be a cute trick to look like they are helping but actually be taking a step backward.

truted2 5y ago

I’ve been developing in WebGL for the last year on a Mac and can’t help but notice that Firefox and Chrome have much better performance (fps) than Safari. I would’ve thought Safari on Mac hardware would work best. Does anyone know where these performance differences stem from?