WebGL Standard To Bring 3D Acceleration To Browsers?

Several sources are reporting that while native audio/video support has been dropped from the HTML 5 spec, the Khronos Group has released a few details about their up and coming WebGL 3D acceleration standard. "The general principle behind WebGL is to offer a JavaScript binding to the group's OpenGL ES 2.0 system, allowing code run within the browser to access the graphics hardware directly in the same way as a standalone application can. As the technology would rely solely on JavaScript to do the heavy lifting, no browser plugin would be required — and it would be compatible with any browser which supports the scripting language alongside the HTML 5 'Canvas' element."

Comments

i for one ...

[neonprimetime]

>>> Does WebGL sound like your dreams come true, or are you frightened by the thought that all those hideous Flash-only marketing pages will now have access to 3D acceleration?

... am frightened

Javascript and direct hardware access.

[Tackhead]

What could possibly go wrong?

What's next, a way to make web browsers faster by making /dev/kmem remotely writable?

Re:Javascript and direct hardware access.

[BuR4N]

"What could possibly go wrong?"

WebGL is based on OpenGL ES and together with javascript bindings its a really neat way of expand the usage of a browser without the need for a multitude of different plugins (each coming with their problems and security issues). Standards is good for you, and to make certain applications we will need 3D directly in the browser (I'm not just thinking geek stuff here, lots of stuff like you need a standalone program for today could run directly in the browser, planing your home, drag around those furnitures and when your happy, just click order !).

Re:Javascript and direct hardware access.

[ivoras]

It's "direct hardware access" in the same sense as the 2D accelerated DrawRectangle() is "direct hardware access".

The Khronos Group

[MediaStreams]

http://www.khronos.org/

Re:Could someone explain...

[e4g4]

read about them...here They appear to be the people who run the OpenGL standard; Apple, Intel, and several others are members.

For the love of god replace javascript

[presidenteloco]

Is anyone at all working on something that is not as loosy-goosy and hokey as javascript for client-side computing?

I've used Adobe ActionScript (stricter variant of JavaScript) and it is getting a little better, but why do we think "oh, it's the client-side. Let's go back to (essentially) Basic for programming."

(Still moping I didn't get my Applets.)
(Ok, Java is a bit too ugly (accessor hell)
but a language with a little rigidity, checking, and simplicity to it wouldn't hurt, would it?)

Re:For the love of god replace javascript

[Anonymous Coward]

the limitation is you, not the language.

Re:For the love of god replace javascript

[Hurricane78]

While JavaScript is not perfect, it is actually a nice little language. It's just that every retard can "program" in it, and then thinks because he wrote a for loop, he is entitled to an opinion about it.

Few people actually know how to program properly in JS. And the only problem is that JS is too forgiving. Just as the rendering engines for (X)HTML and CSS. But that was the original point. And it's not that bad of a point either.

Because simple scripts are way easier than people think. Every person who can play a shooter, puzzle game, or configure some stuff on his computer, can write acceptable scripts. And even total noobs can write bad ones. I think that is a nice thing.

And this is why you can ignore the (non-pro) masses, ranting about JS.

If it were for me, the scripting interface in browsers would have to support multiple high-level languages anyway: Python, Haskell, Java and Ruby would be those that I'd introduce. But others might want Erlang, Ocaml, and maybe even C++. Why not? If the API is clean, the interpreters work as expected, and everything is sandboxed as it should anyway...

Fast enough for web browsing??!

[formfeed]

There goes the "fast enough for a little browsing and office apps"-computer. Yes, yes, I know, hardware acceleration will render the pages faster - but more and more sites will include 3d junk.

Praise be to Moore and his irrefutable law:

We are doomed to use faster and faster Computers and more and more energy, to read pages that might - content wise- just as well run on gopher.

Honestly?

[Iwanowitch]

I like this. Why not? It can be expected that web browsers use decent security practices, 3D drivers are already doing a fairly good job of providing a stable API via OpenGL, and everything is floating towards web browsers as new deployment platform, also for games and 3D applications. Better have an open 3D standard than a need of all sorts of plugins where everyone comes up with his own half-working solution. This is the indie game developer's wet dream coming true.

Of course, that's the best scenario. How it plays out in practice, we will have to see.

I've got an idea!

[bonch]

Let's abandon decades of fast native APIs and move all our applications to a browser where they will be dependent on the fluctuating feature set of the browser wars, will require programming in JavaScript, and won't have a standard GUI framework to use so that we'll have to code our own from scratch every time as if it's MS-DOS all over again. This way, people will have a pointless, non-native middle-man between their operating systems and their apps!

I've wanted nothing more than to program 3D in friggin' JavaScript. OUR 3D WEB GAME IS COMING FOR YOU, ID SOFTWARE.

Re:I've got an idea!

[SanityInAnarchy]

will require programming in JavaScript

Why is this a bad thing? Or what would you suggest as a better language?

Most people who hate Javascript don't really understand it. I qualify that as "most" because a few people do know enough about it to actually have good reasons for hating it.

won't have a standard GUI framework to use

HTML is more standard than about any other GUI framework, even if less featured.

In fact, something to notice -- most people seem determined to style away the standard GUI elements. Below this message, you'll almost certainly see a "Reply to This" button and a "Parent" button, and unless you've disabled your CSS, they probably look nothing like your standard native buttons.

The issue is that most web designers hate these things, and think they're "ugly". Whether actual users care is up for debate -- they don't seem to have a problem with Google's homepage, for example.

we'll have to code our own from scratch every time as if it's MS-DOS all over again

You mean the MS-DOS, where the network was nearly nonexistent, and applications would largely be written in C or assembly?

I understand your sentiment that the browser feels like a step back, but hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

This way, people will have a pointless, non-native middle-man between their operating systems and their apps!

Better this than Java or C#.

What's more, it's hardly pointless. Or would you rather go back to the days when if you wanted something cool, like the ability to check the weather, receive email, or watch TV, you'd have to download an untrusted (possibly virus/spyware infested) binary .exe, run it on Windows, and hope it doesn't have some weird incompatibility with everything else on your system?

I much prefer the ability to try out pretty much anything I want, in my browser, without having to download/install anything, or uninstall it later. Worst case, I reload the page, or close the tab. Absolute worst case, I have to kill the browser, but no permanent harm.

Oh, and they're portable. I can play with the same apps on Windows, Linux, OS X, an iPhone...

You could argue that the browser isn't the best possible way we could've accomplished that, but those are real advantages it has over the vast majority of desktop apps, especially "fast" ones.

I've wanted nothing more than to program 3D in friggin' JavaScript.

Better than programming 3D in friggin' Flash.

If people are going to insist on taking the Web in this direction, wouldn't you rather it be based on cross-platform open standards?

Re:I've got an idea!

[Lord Bitman]

HTML+Javascript /is/ the standard GUI framework, that's the point.

If you want something to be pixel-perfect, oh no, it may look a bit off.
If you want something to be useful, HTML has been the way to go for at least a decade.
This, like everything else ever, is not a "let's add this so people can do this" thing, but a "people are doing this, let's make it easier/more standardized by writing down what people are doing and recommending that future browsers be sure to support this"

And of course, like everything else ever, most people aren't going to code to the low-level, but will use higher-level libraries since they care more about functionality than "control".

As for "friggin' JavaScript"... what? When I have problems with writing javascript, it's because of IE6 or Firefox-specific bugs, what's your problem with it? Just don't want to share your source code?

Re:I've got an idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

The very name "JavaScript" confuses uninformed people who assume "Java" and "JavaScript" are the same thing. Despite posting as Anon, I can say I've never had much problem with JavaScript as a standard. (I know, I know. The name is really ECMAscript these days, but who calls it that?)

The other side of using JavaScript is that it was slow -- so the 'interpreted versus native' argument would come back up, like it did back in the days of Visual Basic versus Visual C++. But with the advances made in the last... what, year? Two years? JavaScript interpretation is fast. Damned fast.

So I really don't see the problem. But more than anything I'm hoping Adobe finally works in basic 2D (nevermind 3D) acceleration into Flash. Stupid Flash Video redlines my CPU, but I can watch 720p Hi-Def h.264 no problem.

Re:I've got an idea!

[digitalunity]

I miss VRML.

j/k j/k in all seriousness, the uses for 3D support in a browser is pretty limited I think. I can think of a few corner cases, such as large set data visualization, but for general use, I think it will end up being misapplied everywhere.

I did some web programming in JavaScript years ago when browser compatibility was a serious problem and I hated it. I've heard it has gotten much better now, but I don't do web design anymore so I don't really care.

I find myself in agreement with the GP though that there is a general trend of moving traditional desktop applications to web apps in cases where it makes little sense. Developers are working hard to come up with ways to preserve functionality and use these applications even while disconnected from a network. I think the whole thing is an exercise in futility because there will always be people like me who demand snappy, native applications that are locally stored. For security, privacy, responsiveness and other reasons, I don't see myself changing my mind on this topic any time soon.

STOP!

[markdavis]

Meanwhile I am trying to find a way to get Firefox to STOP automatic animation. It used to be easy- don't use Flash and disable animated GIF's. Now with Ajax and Javascript, it is nearly impossible.

* Many people (myself included) can't stand movement on pages while we are trying to read things.
* Some people are using thin clients and animation destroys network bandwidth or overloads the main server.
* Still others are on slower, older computers and animation slows their system to a crawl.
* And many more are on laptops/netbooks and animation pegs the CPU and quickly drains the battery.

IMHO, a well-designed site will never create movement unless the user asks for it (with a mouse-over or click or whatever). But that would be a "in a perfect world" type fantasy.

Please, don't bother replying suggesting "noscript"- it breaks necessary functionality of sites horribly.

Re:Port 80

[tepples]

It does when firewalls block everything but ports 80 and 443 and software restriction policies block the installation of any software. There's just a lot less bureaucracy to deploy a web application than a desktop application nowadays.

several sources...are mistaken...

[daithesong]

"Several sources are reporting that while native audio/video support has been dropped from the HTML 5 spec" is hard to reconcile with http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video (and the same document is available at the W3C, O doubters). It seems (gasp) that several sources can be...wrong!

Video/audio did NOT get dropped

[Lennie]

Their just isn't a recommendation about what codecs should be supported in the spec.