4 ms·
Writing a game engine is quite different to writing a set of bindings (which is basically all WebGL is). There isn't much scope for optimization so I wouldn't h
by McP 15y ago
Writing a game engine is quite different to writing a set of bindings (which is basically all WebGL is). There isn't much scope for optimization so I wouldn't hold out hope for WebGL apps running much faster in future browsers.
- nknight 15y agoHm, sorry, I was under the impression the WebGL implementations were being done rather differently than they apparently are. I hadn't thought the calls were getting passed through directly due to security concerns. Chrome, at least, appears to be a straight binding with extensive validation... That... kinda makes my nervous.
- bri3d 15y agoI think your nervousness is well founded, and that's why Microsoft won't implement WebGL [1], but Chrome's developers seem to think they can make things secure [2]. [1]: http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-considered-harmful.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-cons... [2] : http://games.greggman.com/game/webgl-security-and-microsoft-bullshit/ http://games.greggman.com/game/webgl-security-and-microsoft-...
- nknight 15y agoI don't think nervousness about a particular implementation approach is a reason not to implement WebGL, just a reason not to do it in what I gather is Chrome's way. On the other hand, Chrome's strategy might just be getting explained poorly. My nervousness comes partly because the way it's described sounds like a filtering strategy. If it's more like a whitelisting strategy, it could be considerably less scary, and more in line with what I was kind of expecting from browser vendors.