Simply
GL_ARB_hlsl
Which allows the use of HLSL for shaders. The reason I proposed this extension is because HLSL is currenly more mature and makes alot of sense as a shading language. The GLSL is undergoing changes and stability/comparability issues with previous versions...
While you're at it, why not have "GL_ARB_D3D" where you just use the D3D API.
With such proposals like this, one wonders why the ARB doesn't really take this suggestion forum very seriously...
Not to be rude, but this is the worst idea ever.
I you put HLSL on openGL than you have to maintain compatibility between Microsoft language and openGL extension.
If Microsoft add a feature on HLSL so openGL be the same.
HLSL support tesselation shader.. so GL_ARB_hlsl must support it, and so openGL.
Basically Microsoft will take the control on openGL.
And actually MS is not even on ARB.
~ ~ I tell you, realtime 3D is made of blood, sweat and screams! ~ ~
Coming back for the weekly dose of troll feed, I see.
385 snacks is more than enough.
I did not mention Microsoft or using the D3D API from GL as some "people" replied. We always think it's troll because we have bad attitude toward sme vendor or we always associate inventions with their inventors...WRONG! When I say D3D or HLSL I mean the technology being used by developers not whoever created them...I don't care.
HLSL sounds to be a standard that can be adopted since it's vs. the "API" is more stable in sense that it does improve without imposing backward compatibility issues.
At what?Originally Posted by Alfonse Reinheart
Then you already know they never took your posts and suggestions seriously, why bother then?
Cheer up guys!
It's always possible to use 3rd-party compilers/translators to GLSL.
(usually just hobbyist) OpenGL driver developer
We think it's a troll because you have a habit of proposing things are that nothing more than thinly veiled wrappers around "OpenGL should do things the D3D way."We always think it's troll because we have bad attitude toward sme vendor or we always associate inventions with their inventors...
For example, I'm in favor of the idea behind EXT_separate_shader_objects (though not the specifics of the extension). However, that's because it's a good idea, not because it's how D3D does it. It cuts down a lot on compile/link cycles, and makes it easier to mix and match shaders.
The problem with your idea is that the only thing going for it is that it is what D3D does. It has no merit other than that.
What "backward compatibility" issues does GLSL have? And in what way is HLSL a "standard"?HLSL sounds to be a standard that can be adopted since it's vs. the "API" is more stable in sense that it does improve without imposing backward compatibility issues.
...
I don't really agree with that statement, both are equally in flux but i can only see GLSL doing it with a specific goal in mind to make it perfect.
Either way, you only want it so you won't have to spend 10 minutes converting existing HLSL shaders.
glfreak, are you not of the body? Carefull what you say as GLandrew hears all!
Well, back to the festival...
Posting Permissions
