Rendering a bunch of vertices in 3D is an “embarrassingly parallel” problem, you can scale it pretty much forever.
With all due respect, if you compare that to 2D layouting and stuff, you don’t know much about the topic.
With all due respect, if you compare that to 2D layouting and stuff, you don’t know much about the topic.
There's a range of options between "can render millions of objects with complex animation and logic" in a few milliseconds and "we will warn you when you have 800 dom nodes on a static page, you shouldn't do many updates or any useful animations"
Somehow people assume that what HTML does is so insanely hard that the problem of 2D layout should not just be relevant to modern day supercomputers, but to be so slow as to be seen with the naked eye.
The 2D layout in HTML is slow because the DOM (with the millions of conflicting hacks on top of it) is slow, not the other way around.
We could do most of the frankly laughable HTML layouts at least in early 2000s, perhaps earlier.
Well, definitely earlier, as Xerox that influenced the Mac is from 1970s
Well yeah, all those hacks of html that we cannot get rid of, because of backwards compatibility are probably the main reason the DOM is slow. HTML was made to view documents after all and not design UI's. And now it is, what it is. But there are options now!
So yes, it is definitely possible to build snappy 2D layouts. I build one with HTML, using only a subset and that worked out somewhat allright .. but now I am switching to WebGL. And there is a world in between in terms of performance.