m-schuetz

"webp" sounds like it's specifically targeted to the web. If I want to save an image in a certain file format, I am not going to chose the one that sounds like it's meant for deployment in web browsers, with potentially low quality for faster transfer.

While that might not be what WebP does, it is what it implies to regular users.

> Anthropic did not get much bite on Fable at its original pricing

I stopped using Fable because it kept stopping itself due to safeguards.

Ironically when we did compression quality evaluations, me and my colleague found that PSNR way better matches our perception of quality, than LPIPS or FLIP. Our assumption is that LPIPS is biased towards quality artifacts that is not representative of compression quality artifacts.

> And OpneGL is worse

I disagree. OpenGL is truly bad, but there is no API in this world as bad as Vulkan.

Shaders aren't the issue with Vulkan. Writing 50 lines of code for things that should be one-liners is.

Ironically, the Vulkan discord always complains about the bad support of Vulkan on mobile devices, and how OpenGL ES is still better supported.

> Personally, I would recommend WebGPU to people who want to get into graphics programming.

Unfortunately WebGPU is like 5 years behind OpenGL 4.6, which is already 8 years old. WebGPU is pretty ancient.

WebGPU has the issue that feature/capability-wise it is essentially 5 years behind OpenGL 4.6, which came out 8 years ago. And the other downside being that it adopted old Vulkan concepts that even Vulkan started to ditch, like render passes and static pipelines.

Vulkan is garbage. It's completely needlessly overengineered. Like, you literally have to write 50 lines of code just to allocate GPU memory, which is a one-liner in other APIs like CUDA. These 50 lines include things like heap type shopping and usage flags, that are entirely pointless for modern desktop GPUs. I know there is VMA, but that is a poorly made bandaid over a badly designed API, and barely addresses one out of 100 UX issues with Vulkan. There is a reason so many are sticking with OpenGL. OpenGL is fairly bad, but at least it isn't Vulkan.

But I can agree with CUDA. CUDA is great, in a large part because it actually offers an easy to use API.

Time. I have the time to maintain a single GUI. I do not have the time to maintain three GUIs. Of course they'll be 99% the same, but checking that this 1% difference behaves and looks fine accross systems adds a substantial amount of effort that I simply can not support. And for what exacatly? I want them to be identical accross systems, not different.

They may care, however, if they get anything at all. I do not have the resources to target something to all platforms, so the alternative wouldn't be "Users get UI targeted towards their OS", the alternative would be "Users get nothing since developers don't have the time to also target their system".

The alternative is not that users get a UI specific for their OS, it is that users get nothing since I do not have the resources to develop for multiple systems. So yes, it is also an advantage to users.

I have better things to do than spend my time adopting UI for various different systems. If Electron gives me the option to easily create a UI that looks the same everywhere, then I'll pick Electron over anything else any day.

Consistency is the reason why Electron is great. Consistency of the UI across operating systems.

> They consistently miss the mark in adopting UI patterns from their host OS.

What you suggest is a disadvantage is one of the key advantages of Electron to me. I precisely do not want my things to look different on different OS. I don't have the resources to test my apps on all devices, and knowing that whatever I test on one system looks the same on another is A+.