Nice! I'm happy to see low-level wrappers around webgl. It does have a really verbose interface. And there's room for a level of abstraction above webgl but below three.js.
Everyone uses three.js, but if you want to write shaders (a big part of the point of webgl IMO), three.js can be difficult to work with. It has a fairly involved system for building its shaders from a big library of shader snippets. Last I looked, it seemed pretty complicated to hook your own shaders into that system.
If you don't want to write shaders, three.js is great, but if you do, it may be more than you want.
4 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 17.5 ms ] threadEveryone uses three.js, but if you want to write shaders (a big part of the point of webgl IMO), three.js can be difficult to work with. It has a fairly involved system for building its shaders from a big library of shader snippets. Last I looked, it seemed pretty complicated to hook your own shaders into that system.
If you don't want to write shaders, three.js is great, but if you do, it may be more than you want.
There's another library I've used, also a low-level webgl wrapper, called GLOW: https://github.com/empaempa/GLOW
Development on it has slowed, but I think it has a really nice approach.
One minor nitpick: not sure how best to contribute to this based on your github. Do you prefer pull requests or the like?