Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Nogl implementation #2

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

Nogl implementation #2

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

dy
Copy link
Contributor

@dy dy commented Mar 10, 2016

Hello @mattdesl!

Some changes:

  • Nogl implementation for nodejs.
  • Retargeted to process n×m dim canvas.
  • Augmented the API to follow the logic var draw = Draw(what, how). It is compatible with old API, but now user can simply pass a fragment shader source: var draw = create(glslify('shader.frag')).
  • Optimized performance of draw, now it is 2-3 times faster in some cases.
  • Turned on float values by default - they better fit for processing.

I know, it is quite big change, and you may not like changed code style/test runner, just wanted to know your opinion and maybe ideas for a new package name then. Maybe gl-shader-process or gl-shader-draw?

Thanks anyways.

@dy dy mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2016
@mattdesl
Copy link
Contributor

Very cool!! I think a lot of this may be out of scope for this module, though, which is just trying to be specific to webgl.

What about moving the core non-glsl logic to another module like 'js-glsl'? Then you can build other modules on top of it.

Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:13 AM, Deema Yvanow [email protected] wrote:

Hello @mattdesl!

There I’ve provided nogl implementation of a module for nodejs.
Augmented the API to follow the logic createDraw(shader, options). It is compatible with old API, but now user can simply pass a fragment shader source: create(glslify('sound.frag')).
Optimized performance of draw, now it is 2-3 times faster in some cases.
Turned on float values by default.
I know, it is quite big change, just wanted to know your opinion and maybe ideas for a new package name, if you prefer to keep the current gl-shader-output implementation. Maybe gl-shader-process or gl-shader-draw?

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#2

Commit Summary

Update style
Provide basic nogl implementation
File Changes

M README.md (48)
M index.js (168)
A nogl.js (55)
M package.json (28)
M test/test.js (177)
Patch Links:

https://github.com/Jam3/gl-shader-output/pull/2.patch
https://github.com/Jam3/gl-shader-output/pull/2.diff

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@dy
Copy link
Contributor Author

dy commented Mar 13, 2016

@mattdesl nice idea, thanks. Guess I will do that. I have already a bunch of things which are able to be implemented with glsl-js stackgl/glsl-transpiler#9

@dy
Copy link
Contributor Author

dy commented Mar 30, 2016

Moved nogl logic to nogl-shader-output

@dy dy mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2016
@dy
Copy link
Contributor Author

dy commented Mar 31, 2016

Obsolete due to #3

@dy dy closed this Mar 31, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants