[RFC] WebGL

[asny]

Continuing from issue #5

[richard-uk1]

Awesome work. I'm not really placed to offer an opinion on the proposal as a whole, but I have a couple of questions:

1. If there are some combinations of parameters that are not allowed, can we create types that represent the allowed subset using sum and product types (enums and structs)?
2. Do we want to support WebGL rather than WebGPU, since people using wasm are going to have an up-to-date browser, and WebGPU is designed to replace WebGL?

[Pauan]

@derekdreery I think the problem is that WebGPU isn't even remotely close to ready (it's not standardized yet, the design is still in flux, it currently only runs on Mac OS X Chrome Canary, and you have to enable an experimental flag, and it's missing a ton of features, and it's going to be buggy).

But yeah, in the long term we'll want to replace WebGL with WebGPU.

[ranile]

Hey @ansy, can you create an issue for this RFC. See #136 for details

[asny]

Hi @hamza1311 , it is already there #5

[ranile]

Hi @hamza1311 , it is already there #5

You mentioned that it's a continuation. I haven't read both so can you confirm that it's all the information is there?

[ranile]

Just read it, seems like the issue does have the information. Closing this in favor of #5