> This shows, that this idea wasn't thought through enough.
Isn't this the way you're supposed to do open source? Post code early and often for comments?
It seems like a ridiculous requirement that to show a sketch of what they think a web API should look like for next generation 3-D graphics they should have to design an entire shader language that's different from the one they already have.
It's just a placeholder. They didn't even SHOW the language. They just referred to its name and said they were using that for expediency during the initial version of the document they were showing.
MSL is a non starter, because it's closed. Making a project from scratch that invites collaboration, requires thinking about such issues in advance and having them at the very foundation. That's my whole point. Failure to do it, is not an encouraging sign.
> should have to design an entire shader language that's different from the one they already have.
They don't need to design a new language - take existing open one and use it.
They explicitly said that it's a placeholder. They weren't suggesting it be used. It was just something easy for them to rig up for their initial demo.
I think you're reading a lot of intention that isn't there into that placeholder.
Isn't this the way you're supposed to do open source? Post code early and often for comments?
It seems like a ridiculous requirement that to show a sketch of what they think a web API should look like for next generation 3-D graphics they should have to design an entire shader language that's different from the one they already have.
It's just a placeholder. They didn't even SHOW the language. They just referred to its name and said they were using that for expediency during the initial version of the document they were showing.