Live data from Hacker News

Chrome ships WebGPU

developer.chrome.com

51–60 of 405 posts

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#51

The browser truly is the new OS, for better or for worse.

They couldn't secure our OSes to run untrusted code safely, so they built a OS on top of a OS (yo-dawg meme here).

It wouldn't even be so terrible, if it didn't tie us down to a crappy language (JS).

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#52
post #32

Chrome _will_ ship WebGPU in the next update... Current is 112, WebGPU is 113. Seriously google, can't you just wait until you actually ship the stuff before you say you shipped it...

They count the beta channel as the release channel so if it is in beta channel it is released from here if no bugs are found would be pushed to stable.

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#54
post #15

I lost all hope for WebGPU after they decided to roll their own ad-hoc shader language that kinda looks like, but is totally not rust. At least with WebGL you had C. Without SPIR-V support this spec is just another tire on the fire that is the modern web.

> At least with WebGL you had C.

Huh? WebGL uses two (incompatible to each other) versions of GLSL, not C.

The topic of the WebGPU shading language has been discussed to death already, with no new insights brought to the discussion for a very long time.

If you have a SPIRV based shader pipeline, you can simply translate SPIRV to WGSL in an offline compilation step (and to get to SPIRV in the first place, you need an offline compilation step anyway).

If you use one of the native WebGPU libraries outside the browser, you can load SPIRV directly.

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#55
post #15

I lost all hope for WebGPU after they decided to roll their own ad-hoc shader language that kinda looks like, but is totally not rust. At least with WebGL you had C. Without SPIR-V support this spec is just another tire on the fire that is the modern web.

> At least with WebGL you had C.

WebGL's shading language was not C.

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google are the people paying for Chrome, they do not benefit in any way from this kind of fingerprinting. To the contrary, it decreases the value of their browser monopoly.

> Google are the people paying for Chrome, they do not benefit in any way from this kind of fingerprinting. The largest ad company in the world 80% of whose money comes from online advertising does not benefit from tracking...

Even supposing that Google do benefit from it in that manner, there would be far simpler ways for them to make fingerprinting easier. It's extremely unlikely that this is a significant motivation for adding WebGPU. Not to mention that a lot of the fingerprinting you can potentially do with WebGPU can already be done with WebGL.

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#57
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt there's as much effort being put into crypto these days. The folks hustling on crypto are now in the AI space.

> storyteller.ai

If anything I'd argue my vantage point gives me a better perspective on this.

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#60
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I don't see how any of the vendors could break it without being extremely overt about it. And it has no direct competition. Nothing else runs on any OS and any GPU, except WebGL, which is abandoned.

> I don't see how any of the vendors could break it without being extremely overt about it. > except WebGL, which is abandoned. So it can be abandoned

It becoming a stale standard is maybe the biggest threat, yes. It has the issue all standards have since several actors have to play along, except this time it isn't Nvidia, Apple, and AMD, but Wgpu/Mozilla and Google. Their incentives are hopefully better aligned with users than those of the hardware vendors.

I suspect WebGL was different, since it was based on the old OpenGL/DX9 way of doing things, so a clean break was desireable. But I honestly am not that knowledgeable in neither graphics programming nor WebGL history, so take that with several grains of salt.

Post reply on HN