> Targeting all three can be tough, hence WebGPU which lets you write to a single API.
And which doesn't exist (except behind a flag, will probably ship in Chrome 113). And the spec already has over 1500 issues (over 300 still open).
So... It's not "targeting three graphics APIs is tough, target just WebGPU". It's "here's a third incompatible graphics API for the web (after Canvas and WebGL), and people may expect you to also support it an addition to non-web APIs"
You can already use WebGPU today, if you're targeting something other than the browser. There's already game engines & graphics libraries being made thru one of the WebGPU implementations, and you can always start using it now after some setup. wgpu (Firefox's) for Rust or Dawn (Chrome's) for C/C++/Zig.
> You can already use WebGPU today, if you're targeting something other than the browser.
Why would I?
> There's already game engines & graphics libraries being made thru one of the WebGPU implementations, and you can always start using it now after some setup
Again, what's the point? Just to say "oh look I can"?
And which doesn't exist (except behind a flag, will probably ship in Chrome 113). And the spec already has over 1500 issues (over 300 still open).
So... It's not "targeting three graphics APIs is tough, target just WebGPU". It's "here's a third incompatible graphics API for the web (after Canvas and WebGL), and people may expect you to also support it an addition to non-web APIs"