It seems like there would be alternate ways to do online shader generation than concatenating strings and compiling if there were a well-formed binary standard. Maybe it is the easiest conceptually, but I don't see that as being a performance target in that case.
Edit: Also seems like they are leaning pretty heavily into Babylon.js. I don't think a standard should be developed that closely with any one specific application or framework.
Our collaboration with Babylon.js happened after most of the spec proposal work. It was inspired by Google’s similar collaboration with Babylon.js prompting Google’s own SPIR-V based implementation of WebGL. This makes the comparison more apples-to-apples.
WebGPU itself is guided by input from many framework and engine developers.
Sure. I would just consider that the working group keep a broad perspective on the issue. There are developers who use graphics frameworks bare-metal, and there are also a number of frameworks that haven't been mentioned and don't seem to be cooperating, for instance, Pixi.js and Three.js. I think the WG has a responsibility to represent their interests as well, whether or not they are actively participating. I also don't think that the technology has to match the existing architecture of engines. Instead, we should be looking at find the best technology for a long-term solution.
Many developers already know that they will have to make significant overhauls to upgrade to WebGPU. "If WebGPU turns out to be as powerful as we all hope it to be libraries like Three.js will likely have to be rewritten from scratch in order to take full advantage of it." [0]
We (Apple) have privately reached out to quite a few JS frameworks and web game engines. We’re trying to take all their input into account and to share it with the WG.
Edit: Also seems like they are leaning pretty heavily into Babylon.js. I don't think a standard should be developed that closely with any one specific application or framework.
reply