Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

webkit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 650 posts

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#371

Post by shmerl »

stephenr wrote: post #370
shmerl wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you really want a web app to tell you that you need to update your GPU drivers to get support for Vulkan Why wouldn't you want to do it? Same can happen when you install some non Web application that requires it (games / VR etc.). I don't see how Web or non Web makes any difference. If you don't have up to date graphics drivers, problems are inevitable anyway, and you better fix that. If Web application graceful…

> Why wouldn't you want to do it? Are you fucking serious? The web is always being trumpeted as "works everywhere". But now you want to tie the web to specific GPU drivers? > Same can happen when you install some non Web application that requires it (games?) You can use the web on a lot of devices that you can't install local applications on. > I don't see how Web or non Web makes any difference Perhaps you should lo…

> The web is always being trumpeted as "works everywhere".

This isn't just "The Web". It's a Web interface for intense graphics usage. Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly.

> You can use the web on a lot of devices that you can't install local applications on.

And that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there. If user has no control, and vendor doesn't care to keep it up to date as well, I doubt browser makers can do anything to remedy such cases. They'd just blacklist certain driver combinations (that's already the case for the reference).

Such users would contemplate either using a normal system, or skipping such applications on their un-updateable / broken one.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#372

Post by monocasa »

MBCook wrote: post #306
Kubuxu wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true, Vulcan drivers are included in drivers of the GPU manufacturer.

No, Nvidia and AMD including Vulcan drivers. Intel isn't and said they don't plan to. Intel has a HUGE market share thanks to integrated graphics. There are other companies too.

> There are other companies too.

In addition to what people have said about Intel, Qualcomm, ARM, and IMG are all behind Vulkan. Who else is making GPUs these days?

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#373

Post by pcwalton »

vvanders wrote: post #302
pcwalton wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're going to write something to run on a wide range of platforms you're either going to deal with least-common denominator(GLES2) or write per-platform layers(like we'd do on consoles/etc). You say that like it's a good thing! The point of WebGL is to put that pain on the browser vendor. OpenGL ES 2 is incredibly limited, as you know. Yeah, you can do a lot with it, but there's a ton of stuff you can't do (te…

I definitely wasn't saying it was a good thing, just the reality in the graphics space. I just don't see how you push it to the web. You're forcing device capabilites onto users and the web always lags well behind what's happening in the native domain.

I don't understand what you're arguing.

> You're forcing device capabilites onto users

I guess this is an argument about portability? That's an argument against WebGL at all, not about WebGL 2. Besides, WebGL 2 is targeting an API that's 7 years old at this point. A seven-year-old API is not exactly bleeding edge.

> the web always lags well behind what's happening in the native domain

Again, you say that as if it were a good thing! It's not! That's what this is trying to fix!

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#374

Post by Zafira »

I think this is a fruitful and promising discussion on the part of the WebKit team. The biggest problem here is that the antipathy towards Apple in response to the perception that Apple management thinks the Macintosh is a dead-end and this is starting to infect other discussions.

As someone else noted, Apple created OpenCL, helped make it a standard and dumped it. It embraced OpenGL when Mac OS X first came out and now it can't be bothered to implement anything beyond 4.1. All of these little irritations serve to remind people of the Apple of yore that had NIH in extremis and was the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

The hostility is unfortunate, but I fear it's going to become more frequent if Apple's senior management thinks the ship is fine.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#375

Post by MBCook »

shmerl wrote: post #366
MBCook wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This shows, that this idea wasn't thought through enough. Isn't this the way you're supposed to do open source? Post code early and often for comments? It seems like a ridiculous requirement that to show a sketch of what they think a web API should look like for next generation 3-D graphics they should have to design an entire shader language that's different from the one they already have. It's just a placeholder.…

MSL is a non starter, because it's closed. Making a project from scratch that invites collaboration, requires thinking about such issues in advance and having them at the very foundation. That's my whole point. Failure to do it, is not an encouraging sign. > should have to design an entire shader language that's different from the one they already have. They don't need to design a new language - take existing open on…

They explicitly said that it's a placeholder. They weren't suggesting it be used. It was just something easy for them to rig up for their initial demo.

I think you're reading a lot of intention that isn't there into that placeholder.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#376

Post by shmerl »

MBCook wrote: post #375
shmerl wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MSL is a non starter, because it's closed. Making a project from scratch that invites collaboration, requires thinking about such issues in advance and having them at the very foundation. That's my whole point. Failure to do it, is not an encouraging sign. > should have to design an entire shader language that's different from the one they already have. They don't need to design a new language - take existing open on…

They explicitly said that it's a placeholder. They weren't suggesting it be used. It was just something easy for them to rig up for their initial demo. I think you're reading a lot of intention that isn't there into that placeholder.

OK, so why take the wrong placeholder? Do the homework, and present the initial proposal in a better shape.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#380

Post by stephenr »

shmerl wrote: post #371
stephenr wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why wouldn't you want to do it? Are you fucking serious? The web is always being trumpeted as "works everywhere". But now you want to tie the web to specific GPU drivers? > Same can happen when you install some non Web application that requires it (games?) You can use the web on a lot of devices that you can't install local applications on. > I don't see how Web or non Web makes any difference Perhaps you should lo…

> The web is always being trumpeted as "works everywhere". This isn't just "The Web". It's a Web interface for intense graphics usage. Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly. > You can use the web on a lot of devices that you can't install local applications on. And that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there. If user has no control, and vendor doesn't care to keep it up…

> Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly.

It isn't just about working drivers, it's about a specific version of working drivers. Microsoft don't provide Vulkan support on Windows, it's provided by certain GPU drivers, which is pretty much guaranteed to be less than those that support e.g. DirectX on your average PC.

> that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there.

The point of this WG is to have powerful 3d capabilities using different underlying libraries, which maximises the potential to have the capability on different platforms.

You seem to revel in the idea that certain users can't use 3d-based web applications because they don't want to or can't install specific vulcan-supporting drivers.

> If user has no control, and vendor doesn't care to keep it up to date as well, I doubt browser makers can do anything to remedy such cases.

You're somehow confusing "having a Vulkan supporting driver" with "up to date".

Post reply on HN