glslCanvas

Pros of WebGL

• Comprehensive and official API for web-based graphics
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Direct access to low-level GPU features

Cons of WebGL

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more boilerplate code for basic setups
• Less abstraction, which can lead to more complex implementations

Code Comparison

WebGL:

const gl = canvas.getContext('webgl');
const program = gl.createProgram();
gl.attachShader(program, vertexShader);
gl.attachShader(program, fragmentShader);
gl.linkProgram(program);

glslCanvas:

const canvas = new GlslCanvas('#glslCanvas');
canvas.load(fragmentShaderSource);

Summary

WebGL offers a powerful, low-level API for web graphics, providing extensive control and features. It's ideal for complex projects and performance-critical applications. However, it requires more setup and knowledge to use effectively.

glslCanvas simplifies GLSL shader usage, making it more accessible for quick prototyping and simpler projects. It abstracts away much of the WebGL boilerplate, allowing developers to focus on shader code. However, it may lack some advanced features and fine-grained control offered by raw WebGL.

The choice between these depends on project requirements, developer expertise, and desired level of control over the graphics pipeline.

Pros of three.js

• More comprehensive 3D rendering capabilities, including complex scenes, models, and animations
• Larger community and ecosystem, with extensive documentation and examples
• Supports a wide range of 3D features like lighting, textures, and camera controls

Cons of three.js

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• May be overkill for simple 2D or basic 3D projects

Code Comparison

three.js:

const scene = new THREE.Scene();
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 0.1, 1000);
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer();
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);

glslCanvas:

const canvas = document.createElement('canvas');
const sandbox = new GlslCanvas(canvas);
document.body.appendChild(canvas);
sandbox.load(fragmentShader);

three.js is more suitable for complex 3D projects with extensive features, while glslCanvas is ideal for simpler shader-based visualizations and experiments. three.js offers a full-fledged 3D engine, whereas glslCanvas focuses on easy GLSL shader integration for 2D and basic 3D effects.

Pros of regl

• More flexible and powerful, allowing for complex WebGL rendering
• Better performance for large-scale applications
• Supports a wider range of WebGL features and techniques

Cons of regl

• Steeper learning curve, especially for beginners
• Requires more boilerplate code for simple tasks
• Less suitable for quick prototyping or small projects

Code Comparison

glslCanvas:

var canvas = new GlslCanvas("#glslCanvas");
canvas.load(fragmentShader);

regl:

const regl = require('regl')();
const drawTriangle = regl({
  frag: fragmentShader,
  vert: vertexShader,
  attributes: { position: [[-1, -1], [0, 1], [1, -1]] },
  count: 3
});
drawTriangle();

Summary

glslCanvas is simpler and more beginner-friendly, ideal for quick shader experiments and small projects. regl offers more power and flexibility, suitable for larger, more complex WebGL applications. While glslCanvas focuses on fragment shaders, regl provides full control over the rendering pipeline, including vertex shaders and other WebGL features. The choice between them depends on the project's complexity and the developer's experience with WebGL.

Pros of glslify

• Modular approach allows for better code organization and reusability
• Supports npm-style package management for GLSL shaders
• Can be integrated into various build systems and workflows

Cons of glslify

• Requires additional setup and configuration
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners
• Limited to Node.js environments

Code Comparison

glslCanvas:

#ifdef GL_ES
precision mediump float;
#endif

uniform vec2 u_resolution;
uniform float u_time;

void main() {
    gl_FragColor = vec4(1.0, 0.0, 1.0, 1.0);
}

glslify:

#pragma glslify: noise = require('glsl-noise/simplex/3d')

varying vec3 vPosition;

void main() {
    float n = noise(vPosition * 10.0);
    gl_FragColor = vec4(vec3(n), 1.0);
}

glslCanvas is more straightforward for simple shaders, while glslify enables modular shader development with imported functions.

Pros of webgl-fundamentals

• Comprehensive educational resource for WebGL
• Covers a wide range of topics from basics to advanced techniques
• Includes interactive examples and detailed explanations

Cons of webgl-fundamentals

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more setup and boilerplate code
• Less focused on quick shader experimentation

Code Comparison

webgl-fundamentals:

const gl = canvas.getContext("webgl");
const program = webglUtils.createProgramFromScripts(gl, ["vertex-shader-2d", "fragment-shader-2d"]);
gl.useProgram(program);
// ... (more setup code)
gl.drawArrays(gl.TRIANGLES, 0, 3);

glslCanvas:

const canvas = new GlslCanvas("#glslCanvas");
canvas.load(`
  void main() {
    gl_FragColor = vec4(1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0);
  }
`);

glslCanvas provides a simpler API for quick shader experiments, while webgl-fundamentals offers a more in-depth approach to learning WebGL. The former is ideal for artists and designers focusing on fragment shaders, while the latter is better suited for developers seeking a comprehensive understanding of WebGL programming.