jblandy

5 ms·

1.
by jblandy 2y ago
A better way to think about the problem is to recognize that the APIs and drivers are providing various services that pretty much every user is going to need, and which you will now need to reimplement yourself. Nobody needs all of Vulkan,
2.
by jblandy 2y ago
Yes, this.
3.
by jblandy 2y ago
The nice thing about WebGPU's "compat mode" is that it's designed so browsers don't have to implement it if they don't want to. Chrome is really excited about it; Safari has no plans to implement it, ever. I ag
4.
by jblandy 2y ago
There have been a bunch of significant improvements to WGPU's performance over the last few years. * Before the major rework called "arcanization", `wgpu_core` used a locking design that caused huge amounts of contention in
5.
by jblandy 2y ago
WGPU dev here. I agree with everything JMS55 says here, but I want to avoid a potential misunderstanding. Performance is definitely a priority for WGPU, the open source project. Much of WGPU's audience is very concerned with performa
6.
by jblandy 10y ago
In the more theory-oriented departments this is possible. It's easy to assume that the parts of CS you understand well are the important parts. It's the converse of the Blub Paradox. Might there be things that other people conside
7.
by jblandy 11y ago
Yeah, that's a nice trick. I wonder how general it is, though.
8.
by jblandy 11y ago
It may be worth pointing out that the `Option<T>` type in Rust doesn't inherently involve any pointers at all, assuming `T` is not a pointer type itself. For example, `Option<i32>` is probably (the compiler gets to choose)
9.
by jblandy 11y ago
And indeed, it's the representation Rust uses. When you have the type Option<T>, if Rust knows that a value of type T can never be zero (as is the case with pointer types), then the compiler uses zero as the machine-level represe