Shader language squabbles and throwaway accusations aside (for my own purposes I don't really care about WGSL, since there are transpilers back and forth to oth

Shader language squabbles and throwaway accusations aside (for my own purposes I don't really care about WGSL, since there are transpilers back and forth to other shader languages for native use, but loop/continue is not exactly an example of some crazy unprecedented language construct), Metal isn't a cross-platform standard of any sort. It pretty much explicitly exists so Apple can control it (it would be nice if it was Metal-on-Vulkan instead, but I think that ship has sailed). I don't really see how the existence of Metal is a relevant example of what I'm talking about: a portable modern graphics abstraction that is efficient on modern hardware. It's just not true that there are a bunch of those out there, when you're talking about production-quality stuff there's basically just WebGPU. Even if your argument was that Vulkan was supposed to be that standard (which it isn't in practice), Vulkan is pretty much impossible to use safely without building a higher-level abstraction on top. It was desperately in need of a standard higher level API that programmers with limited resources (i.e. not Epic, browser vendors, etc.), or programmers who need to run in sandboxed environments (mostly browsers) can reasonably target, and I think WebGPU serves that purpose nicely. Exposing Vulkan (or DirectX 12, or any similarly low-level API) directly to browsers would have been pretty much a non-starter from a memory safety perspective, WebGPU does not exist solely because Apple didn't like Vulkan.