[hota_mazi]

I understand and see some merit to your angle, but at the end of the day, I don't think Apple will be taken seriously in that area until they support Vulkan.

Go ahead and do that, then we can talk about going up the stack and judging the API you're proposing (and let's be honest, it's really Metal-for-Javascript).

Show some good will.

[threeseed]

Apple will always be taken seriously since they are not just a major mobile vendor but the only vendor capable of getting any technology widely deployed.

Your arguments are very reminiscent of the "Apple must adopt Flash" era. And as we've learn Apple was 100% right to dump that technology as it was simply a poor fit for mobile.

I've seen nothing about Vulkan that indicates it has some inherent qualities that make it suitable as a Javascript API.

[ioquatix]

> I've seen nothing about Vulkan that indicates it has some inherent qualities that make it suitable as a Javascript API.

And you are qualified to make this assertion because?

It would make an awesome JavaScript API. It is well defined, well supported, well documented low level API for graphics. It would easily be exposed within JavaScript.

[om2]

Serious question, have you ever written any nontrivial code using Vulkan?

Everyone I know who's ever coded using Vulkan has found it unpleasant, and even Khronos is considering a higher level API (more along the lines of Metal) because Vulkan is just too hard to use.