(no title)
tylerekahn | 1 year ago
There's a bit of detail here: https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/issues/7015
But I'd be curious to read a longer writeup on the tradeoffs and how they came to their decision.
tylerekahn | 1 year ago
There's a bit of detail here: https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/issues/7015
But I'd be curious to read a longer writeup on the tradeoffs and how they came to their decision.
mikaylamaki|1 year ago
nasso_dev|1 year ago
i heard somewhere this nice example: only big actors like AAA game engines would really benefit from the extra development effort it would take to use an even lower level api like vulkan/dx12 to squeeze the last 10% of performance that wgpu can't get you
so if i understand correctly, zed, just like a AAA game engine, wants to squeeze every last bit of performance from the gpu, and so wgpu is "too high level" for it? and blade is "like wgpu, but no design tradeoffs and lower level" so its a better fit? does that mean someday zed might reach for vulkan directly one day? im assuming dx12 is gonna be used on windows anyway?
i love kvark's work btw, we need more kvarks
Pannoniae|1 year ago
The "design of WebGPU" is a problem. It's designed for the web to be secure and sandboxed so the API design reflects that. This is not a good thing on desktop.
adwn|1 year ago
The page you linked clearly states that wgpu-hal's API is extremely unsafe and skips many checks in order to reduce overhead. So while "secure and sandboxed" explains why wgpu wasn't chosen, it doesn't explain why wgpu-hal wasn't chosen.
zie|1 year ago