You’ve made like 15 comments on this thread with this idea. Cart is intent on sticking to his approach even after listening to your point of view.
I feel like we could just put this conversation on ice and check back in after 6-12 months. Bevy release notes always reach the top of HN. If they go back to creating an abstraction over wgpu, you can say “I told you so” then. And similarly, if Bevy is able to use this approach to provide support for Android, iOS and web (in addition to existing support for windows, Linux and Mac) then you need to own up to that.
> You’ve made like 15 comments on this thread with this idea.
Yet other people beside Cart in my thread still fail to properly understand the idea and instead think I am suggesting not using wgpu at all.
> you can say “I told you so” then
My aim isn’t to say “I told you so” it’s to make sure people accurately understand the point I am making. Cart seems to understand the point I am making therefore I have made no further comments to him.
I understand your point, but I don’t think there’s any value in including an extra layer of abstraction before you need it. Sometimes it’s clear that you need it from the start. But sometimes it’s not.
And if you end up needing to support something sufficiently different from what can fit into wgpu’s API, the right point of indirection might just be the rendering system. E.g., you might just write a separate renderer for the new platform, so you can write to its model in the most efficient way.
I feel like we could just put this conversation on ice and check back in after 6-12 months. Bevy release notes always reach the top of HN. If they go back to creating an abstraction over wgpu, you can say “I told you so” then. And similarly, if Bevy is able to use this approach to provide support for Android, iOS and web (in addition to existing support for windows, Linux and Mac) then you need to own up to that.