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.
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:
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?
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).
I don't imagine them pushing for a DirectX 13, only available on Windows 12 onwards kind of thing, as they have done in past.
Either way, I see we will be back to software rendering, although it is actually hardware accelerated.
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...
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.
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'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.
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.
You get to design a good developer experience, while the plugin system takes care of the optimal API and configuration for each platform.
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.
Hence why NVidia's slang offer was welcomed with open arms.
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.
> 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.
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.
As for true portability of those low-level APIs, you've basically got Apple to blame (and game console manufacturers, but I don't think anyone expected them to cooperate).
Yeah, that's the thing that really irks me. WebGPU could have been just a light wrapper over Vulkan like WebGL is (or was, it's complicated now) for OpenGL. But apple has been on a dumb war with Khronos for the last decade which has made everything more difficult.
So now we have n+1 low level standards for GPU programming not because we needed them, but because 1 major player is obstinate.
Being simpler is an advantage. It means that 3rd party GPU drivers can more simply implement the interface correctly.
However, as discussed in other comments, that doesn't change the driver quality mess of the platform.
How is Apple solely to blame when there are multiple parties involved ? They went to Khronos to turn AMD’s mantle into a true unified next gen APi. Khronos and NVIDIA shot them down to further AZDO OpenGL. Therefore Metal came to be and then DX12 followed and then Vulkan when Khronos realized they had to move that way.
But even if you exclude Metal, what about Microsoft and D3D? Also similarly non-portable. Yet it’s the primary API in use for non-console graphics. You rarely see people complaining about the portability of DX for some reason…
And then in an extremely distant last place is Vulkan. Very few graphics apps actually use Vulkan directly.
Have you tried writing any of the graphics APIs?
Basically, people are mad that you need to buy Apple hardware, use Apple software (macOS), Apple tooling (Xcode), just to develop graphics code for iOS and macOS. At least you don't also need to use Apple language (Swift) to use Metal, though I don't have any first-hand experience with their C++ bindings so I can't judge if it's a painful experience or not.
It's definitely more convenient than Mac because it is provided by the driver and so you can almost always guarantee they exist, but Microsoft themselves do not provide them. On Mac, for Vulkan you can use MoltenVK which is also third party, and bundle it in the app, though definitely less convenient and less fully featured.
Regarding Xbox, that's a bit of an odd point because you might as well include iOS as a platform at that point which is a bigger gaming platform than Xbox. At least iOS uses the same Metal as Mac, while Xbox does vary in some ways from Windows. Granted, iOS gaming is much more casual oriented but there are some AAA games as well.
Regarding Swift, Metal has always been ObjC first not swift first. The C++ bindings are just for convenience, but you've never been bound to Swift even before they existed. Regarding Xcode, that's only to get the toolchain or if you need instrumentation. You don't need to use Xcode to actually develop things, this is no more a burden than needing Visual Studio on Windows.
It has a plugglable driver system, leftover from the Windows NT/OpenGL 1.1 days called ICD, that driver vendors use to add their OpenGL and Vulkan drivers.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/d...
In some subsystems like UWP, or Windows on ARM, ICDs aren't supported, and OpenGL/Vulkan have to be mapped on top of DirectX.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/announcing-the-opencl...
GLon12 is still used for OpenGL however
> Along with a kernel-mode display driver, graphics hardware vendors must also write a user-mode display driver (UMD) for their display adapters. The UMD is a dynamic-link library (DLL) that the Direct3D runtime loads.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/d...
Operating systems do not implement graphics APIs for GPUs. These are created by the GPU manufacturer themselves (AMD, Nvidia, etc.). This includes DirectX drivers, both user-space and kernel-space drivers.
Graphics APIs like DirectX and Vulkan are better thought of as (1) a formal specification for GPU behavior, combined with (2) a small runtime. The actual DX/VK drivers are thin shims around a GPU manufacturer's own driver API.
For AMD, the DirectX / Vulkan / OpenGL graphics drivers share a common layer called "PAL" which AMD has open sourced: <https://github.com/GPUOpen-Drivers/pal>
Apple really isn't that different here: they leave the graphics manufacturers to implement their own drivers. Unfortunately, Apple is the sole graphics manufacturer for their OS, and they've chosen to only implement Metal drivers for their GPUs (and a legacy OpenGL driver too).
It's not that big of a deal though, because Vulkan is supported on macOS through the MetalVK project, which wrap the Vulkan API around the Metal API. And projects like vkd3d wrap the DirectX 12 API around the Vulkan API, which is then wrapped around the Metal API. This is how you're able to run Windows games on Mac via the Game Porting Toolkit or CrossOver, btw.
And you don't install Khronos stuff on console devkits.
Although as usual, NVidia tends to be the exception.
FWIW, the OpenGL 'driver' on macOS and iOS is just an layer on top of Metal for many years now - e.g. same thing as ANGLE, DXVK or MoltenVk, just maintained directly by Apple.
The important difference both of D3D and Metal compared to Vulkan is that Vulkan lacks steering and vision (e.g. it's not a technical problem at all but a cultural/organizational).
Vulkan development looks like GPU vendors just come up with random Vulkan extensions which then from time to time are blessed by Khronos and elevated into the core API.
This "throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks" approach was already the biggest problem in GL (and my naive younger self thought that this obvious problem would be fixed with Vulkan - alas it turned out that this was the one thing that Khronos didn't change). This is really not how a 3D API should be designed.
Mesa has entered the chat. Granted that with the amount of functionality that's stuffed into opaque firmware blobs these days you can make a reasonable argument that a nontrivial portion of any API is ultimately implemented by the firmware authors.
You say this requires reinvention but really the end work is "translate OpenGL to something the hardware can actually understand" in both scenarios. The difference with the OpenGL era is you did not have the option to avoid using the wrapper, not that no wrapper existed. Targeting the best of each possibly hardware type individually without baking in assumptions about the hardware has proven to not be very practical, but it only matters if you're building a "easy translation layer" rather than using it or trying to target specific types of hardware very directly (in which case you don't want something super generic or simple, you want something which exposes the hardware as directly as is reasonable for that hardware type).
Apart from that, D3D11 and Metalv1 are probably the sweet spot between ease-of-use and performance (especially D3D11's performance is hard to beat even in Vulkan and D3D12).
If only the windows team could get out of a tailspin because almost everything else MS produces on the Windows side gets worse and worse every year.
Nintendo after graduating to devkits where C and C++ could be used like N64, had OpenGL inspired APIs, which isn't really the same. Although there was some GLSL like shader support.
They only started supporting Khronos APIs with the Switch, and even then, if you want the full power of the Switch, NVN is the way to go.
Playstation always had proprietary APIs, they did a small stint OpenGL ES 1.0 + Cg, which had very little to no uptake among developers, and they dropped it from the devkits.
Sega only had proprietary APIs, and there was a small collaboration with Microsoft for DirectX, which only a few studios took advantage of.
XBox naturally has always been about DirectX.
Go watch GDC Vault programming track to see how many developers you will find complaining about writing middleware for their game engines, if any at all, versus how many talks about taking the advantage of every little low level detail of hardware architecture.
OpenGL didn't match the hardware well except on SGI hardware or carryover descendants like 3dfx.
Vulkan works approximately everywhere (except Apple, but that's entirely self inflicted and there's a compatibility layer so it's NotMyProblem). OpenGL is more portable than ever thanks to software implementations that yield far more consistent behavior between platforms than was available historically. WebGPU is actually fairly nice to work with, has a well maintained native implementation for two major systems languages, and both of those implementations have (AFAIK) fully functional WASM support. If it happens to gain a native Mesa implementation once everything stabilizes that will merely be icing on the cake. OpenCL has multiple competing implementations, including PoCL which is an adapter providing decently broad support on top of other backends.
And if you don't want to fiddle with native APIs (which no offense intended but you very clearly sound like you don't) there's quite a few choices available to abstract all the low level details away with cross platform cross API middleware which are FOSS and actively maintained.
There are no adults, no leaders with an eye on things leading us away from further mistakes, and we keep going deeper.
But even when it existed in the form of OpenGL , or now WebGPU, people complain about the performance overhead. So you end up back here.
And there are so many pointless things that are no longer relevant, or should at best be optional so that devs can get things done before optimizing.
Yes they’re abstractions, because nobody really wants anyone to be writing directly against the ISA either since the vendors need the ability to change things over time.
Again, to my point, it’s about balancing portability and power/perf.
Personally, I'll sit this generation out and wait dor whatever comes after. I ended up switching to doing software rasterization in Cuda because that's easier than drawing a triangle in Vulkan. Cuda has shown me how insane Vulkan is. Like, why even have descriptir sets, bindings, etc? In cuda you simply call a kernel and provide the data (e.g. vertex or storage buffer) as a pointer argument.
If I am playing with something on native applications, definitely an engine, with rendering plugins.
OTOY does their rendering with CUDA by the way.
So who is the graphics hardware built for? Again, not the consumer and not the game developer.
It is in the interests of these hardware manufacturers to make performance as easy as possible but none of them do. They write their own drivers which implement DirectX 12 or Vulcan or Metal or OpenGL.
So now as a game developer, if I want my game to perform on all platforms, I have to write my shaders natively for Metal, Vulcan, and DirectX 12, at least. Cross-compilers exist but they don’t do their job as well as a human can, so they’re simply not options for some.
All of this is harder for no good reason. And no one cares. No one wants to see things improve. They just make excuses for the hardware manufacturers and kill conversations which explain how things currently suck for a lot of people.
They are a specialized API intended for tool writers.