|
|
|
|
|
by fsloth
5 days ago
|
|
"The "universal" nature of WebGPU with the "web" focus feels a lot like the graphics API equivalent of WASM" Having shipped non-trivial WASM code in two projects That's not a positive thing. WASM is stuck in zone between living and the dead - just good enough (barely) to merit creating production code when you need the perf in browser but not good enough to register as industrial quality tool as it's not possible really to debug a WASM application. If you really, really need the perf in your browser app, WASM may be the only option, but it's not really a good one. |
|
Quite right.
After 15 years, browsers vendors still don't care about 3D APIs on the developer tools, you need to have a native version and hope that the issue is actually on your code and not something that the browser does.
Because of its nature and the browser sandbox, you have no idea if the application is actually working on customer browsers, or even be able to have workarounds like on native APIs.
Finally it lags a decade behind hardware capabilities being surfaced on the API.
However there is nothing else on the browser.
The only positive thing is being 3D APIs designed with managed languages in mind.