Comment by whatevsmate
9 days ago
What promises were made, by whom? Graphics APIs have never been about ease of use as a first order goal. They've been about getting code and data into GPUs as fast as reasonably possible. DevEx will always play second fiddle to that.
I think WebGPU is a decent wrapper for exposing compute and render in the browser. Not perfect by any means - I've had a few paper cuts working with the API so far - but a lot more discoverable and intuitive than I ever found WebGL and OpenGL.
> They've been about getting code and data into GPUs as fast as reasonably possible. DevEx will always play second fiddle to that.
That's a tiny bit revisionist history. Each new major D3D version (at least before D3D12) also fixes usability warts compared to the previous version with D3D11 probably being the most convenient to use 3D API - while also giving excellent performance.
Metal also definitely has a healthy balance between convenience and low overhead - and more recent Metal versions are an excellent example that a high performance modern 3D API doesn't have to be hard to use, nor require thousands of lines of boilerplate to get a triangle on screen.
OTH, OpenGL has been on a steady usability downward trend since the end of the 1990s, and Vulkan unfortunately had continued this trend (but may steer into the right direction in the future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-SzTHAKGo
I hear you but I also don't see a ton of disagreement here either. Like, the fact that D3D12 includes _some_ usability fixes suggests that DevEx really does take a back seat to the primary goal.
I'm not arguing that DevEx doesn't exist in graphics programming. Just that it's second to dots on screen. I also find webgpu to be a lot nicer in terms of DevEx than WebGL.
Wdyt? Still revisionist, or maybe just a slightly different framing of the same pov?
> I also find webgpu to be a lot nicer in terms of DevEx than WebGL.
Amen.
IMHO a new major and breaking D3D version is long overdue. There must be plenty of learnings in which areas it was actually worth it to sacrifice ease-of-use for peformance and where it wasn't.
Or maybe something completely radical/ridiculous and make HLSL the new "D3D API" (with some parts of HLSL code running on the CPU, just enough to prepare CPU side data for upload to the GPU).
1 reply →
> Metal also definitely has a healthy balance between convenience and low overhead - and more recent Metal versions are an excellent example that a high performance modern 3D API doesn't have to be hard to use, nor require thousands of lines of boilerplate to get a triangle on screen.
Metal 4 has moved a lot in the other direction, and now copies a lot of concepts from Vulkan.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/metal/understandin...
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/metal/resource-syn...
If only Vulkan SDK was half as good as Metal development experience, including IDE integration, proper support for managed languages, and graphical debugging and profiling experience.
That has been the main pain point of Khronos APIs, it isn't only the extension spaghetti, the first step is always to go fishing all the puzzle pieces to have a proper development experience.
At least now there is LunarG SDK, however for how long are they going to sponsor them, and it isn't applicable to Android, where Google does the minimum, a Github repo dump with samples and good luck.
Compare that with Apple Metal frameworks.
"What promises were made, by whom?"
Technically true, but practically tone deaf.
WebGPU is both years too late, and just a bit early. Wheras WebGL was OpenGL circa 2005, WebGPU is native graphics circa 2015. It shouldn't need to be said that the bleeding edge new standard for web graphics shouldn't be both 10 years out of date and awful.
Vendors are finally starting to deprecate the old binding model as the byzantine machinery that it is. Bindless resources are an absolute necessity for the modern style of rendering with nanite and raytracing.
Rust's WGPU on native supports some of this, but WebGPU itself doesn't.
It's only intuitive if you don't realize just how huge the gap is between dispatching a vertex shader to render some triangles, and actually producing a lit, shaded and occlusioned image with PBR, indirect lighting, antialiasing and postfx. Would you like to render high quality lines or points? Sorry, it's not been a priority to make that simple. Better go study up on SDFs and beziers.
Which, tbh, is the impression I get from webgpu efforts. Everyone forgets the drivers have been playing pretend for decades, and very few have actually done the homework. Of those that have, most are too enamored with being a l33t gfx coder to realize how terrible the dev exp is.
I'm not sure I disagree with you really - and I ack that webgpu feels like 2015 tech to someone who knows their stuff. I don't have a take on "l33t gfx coder"; I'm a hobbyist not a professional, and I've enjoyed getting up to speed with WebGPU over and above my experiences with WebGL. Happy to be schooled.
I've never impl PBF or raytracing because my interests haven't gone that way. I don't find SDFs to be a particularly difficult concept to "study up on" either though. It's about as close to math-as-drawing that I've seen and doesn't require much more than a couple triangles and a fragment shader. By contrast I've been learning about SVT for a couple months and still haven't quite pieced together a working impl in webgpu... though I understand there are extensions specifically in support of virtual tiling that WebGPU could pursue in a future version.
Agreed DevEx broadly isn't great when working on graphics. But WebGPU feels like a considerable improvement rather than a step backward.
I can give a bit more context as someone that got on WebGL, then WebGPU, and is now picking up Vulkan for the first time.
The problem is that GPU hardware is rapidly changing to enable easier development while still having low level control. With ReBAR for example you can just take a pointer into gigabytes of GPU memory and pump data into it as if it was plain old RAM with barely any performance loss. 100 lines of bullshit suddenly turn into a one line memcpy.
Vulkan is changing to support all this stuff, but the Vulkan API was (a) designed when it didn't exist and is (b) fucking awful. I know that might be a hot take, and I'm still going to use it for serious projects because there's nothing better right now, but the same extensibility that makes it possible for Vulkan to just pivot huge parts of the API to support new stuff also makes it dogshit to use day to day, the code patterns are terrible and it feels like you're constantly compromising on readability at every turn because there is simply zero good options for how to format your code.
WebGPU doesn't have those problems, I quite liked it as an API. But it's based on a snapshot of these other APIs right at the moment before all this work has been done to simplify graphics programming as a whole. And trying to bolt new stuff onto WebGPU in the same way Vulkan is doing is going to end up turning WebGPU into a bloated pile of crap right alongside it.
If you're coming from WebGL, WebGPU is going to feel like an upgrade (or at least it did for me). But now that I've seen a taste of the future I'm pretty sure WebGPU is dead on arrival, it just had horrendous timing, took too long to develop, and now it's backed into a corner. And in the same vein, I don't think extending Vulkan is the way forward, it feels like a pretty big shift is happening right now and IMO that really should involve overhauls at the software/library level too. I don't have experience with DX12 or Metal but I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 go bye bye soon and get replaced with something new that is way simpler to develop with and reflects the current state of hardware and driver capabilities.
3 replies →
If it weren't for the brand new shading language it might have been a step forward. But instead it's further fragmentation. Vulkan runs happily with GLSL, Proton runs HLSL on Linux, SPIR-V isn't bad.
And the new shading language is so annoying to write it basically has to be generated. Weird shader compilation stuff was already one of the biggest headaches in graphics. Feels like it'll be decades before it'll all be stable.
2 replies →
Only if you don't take tooling into consideration, after a decade of WebGL, there still isn't anything other than SpectorJS and no vendor sees as priority to provide anything beyond pixel debugging.
>It's only intuitive if you don't realize just how huge the gap is between dispatching a vertex shader to render some triangles, and actually producing a lit, shaded and occlusioned image with PBR, indirect lighting, antialiasing and postfx. Would you like to render high quality lines or points? Sorry, it's not been a priority to make that simple. Better go study up on SDFs and beziers.
I think this is a tad unfair. You're basically describing a semi-robust renderer at that point. IMO to make implementing such a renderer truly "intuitive" (I don't know what this word means to you, so I'm taking it to mean--offloading these features to the API itself) would require railroading the developer some, which appears to go against the design of modern graphics APIs.
I think Unity/Unreal/Godot/Bevy make more sense if you're trying to quickly iterate such features. But even then, you may have to hand write the shader code yourself.
As a former l33t gfx, my love for Khronos APIs ended with Long Peaks failure, the endless way to load extensions, and the realisation of how much better the experience with proprietary APIs happens to be when it is though out end to end, with a proper SDK, IDE tooling and graphical debugging.
From Steve Wittens, a well respected graphics hacker, and maker of the excellent Use.GPU. https://acko.net/tv/usegpu/ . I'm mostly posting to expand context, and sprinkle in a couple light options.
> Bindless resources are an absolute necessity for the modern style of rendering with nanite and raytracing.
Yeah, for real. Looking at the November 2024 post "What's next for WebGPU" and HN comments, bindless is pretty high up there! There's a high level field survey & very basic proposal (in the hackmd link), and wgpu seems to be filling in the many gaps and seemingly quite far along in implementation. Not seeing any signs yet that the broader WebGPU implementors/spec folks are involved or following along, but at least wgpu is very cross platform & well regarded.
https://developer.chrome.com/blog/next-for-webgpu https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42209272 https://hackmd.io/PCwnjLyVSqmLfTRSqH0viA https://hackmd.io/@cwfitzgerald/wgpu-bindless https://github.com/gfx-rs/wgpu/issues/3637 https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/issues/380
> Would you like to render high quality lines or points? Sorry, it's not been a priority to make that simple. Better go study up on SDFs and beziers.
I realize lines and font rendering are an insanely complex fields, and that OpenGL offering at least lines and Vulkan not sure feels like a slap in the face. The work being done by groups like https://linebender.org/ is intense. Overall though that intensity makes me question the logic of trying to include it, wonders whether fighting to specify something that clearly we don't have full mastery over makes sense: even the very best folks are still improving the craft. We could specify an API without specifying an exact implementation, without conformance tests, perhaps, but that feels like a different risk. Maybe having to reach for a library that does the work reflects where we are, causes the iteration & development we sort of need?
> actually producing a lit, shaded and occlusioned image with PBR, indirect lighting, antialiasing and postfx
I admit to envying the ambition to make this simple, to have such a great deep knowledge as Steve and to think such hard things possible.
I really really am so thankful and hope funding can continue for the incredibly hard work of developing webgpu specs & implementations, and wgpu. As @animats chimes in in the HN submission, bindless in particular is quite a crisis, which either will enable the web to go forward, or remain a lasting real barrier to the web's growth. Really seems to be the tension of Steve's opening position:
> WebGPU is both years too late, and just a bit early. Wheras WebGL was OpenGL circa 2005, WebGPU is native graphics circa 2015.
> OpenGL offering at least lines...
WebGPU does have line (and point) primitives since they are a direct GPU feature.
It just doesn't bother to 'emulate' lines or points that are wider than 1 pixel, since this is not commonly supported in modern native 3D APIs. Drawing thick lines and points are better done by a high level vector drawing API.