gpuweb VS HedgeDoc

People keep spreading this incredibly misleading statement, and yours is even more misleading (suggesting Apple opposed a 'GPU WASM')

By all accounts, Apple's /only/ stance was that if WebGPU used SPIR-V it would be a non-starter for them, due to ongoing legal issues between Apple and Khronos.

Apple actually proposed WebHLSL in collaboration with Microsoft, to have HLSL be the standard.

Mozilla employee's stance[0] was that SPIRV was too low level, did not fit with the goals of WebGPU portability and security, and expressed concern that Khronos may add functionality to SPIRV they cannot support in WebGPU like raytracing instructions .. 'So we'd always be on the verge of forking SPIR-V in some way.'

It was also noted by many people that even if a bytecode format was used, it would still have to be translated to the target (HLSL/DXIL, MSL, etc.) in almost the same way a text format would.

Nobody proposed a 'GPU WASM equivalent' or an alternative bytecode format.

The hard truth is that shader compilation is a fucking nightmare, people do not realize how bad it is across the different native APIs. SPIR-V is good, but it doesn't solve that - and presents other challenges if you are a web browser API. Vulkan and SPIRV are not the golden goose many make them out to be.

[0] https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/issues/847#issuecomment-642...

Yes it is still a bit new. WebGPU is not finished and is still being worked on: https://webgpu.io/

WebGPU currently doesn't support the "bindless" resource access model (see: https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/issues/380).

The "max number of sampled texture per shader stage" is a runtime device limit, and the minimal value for that seems to be 16. So texture atlasses are still a thing in WebGPU.

There's even an implementation under discussion to have the dp4a instruction added to WebGPU (https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/issues/2677)

Nice and simple. I feel the only lacking feature for a basic blog is having unlisted blog posts, which is very handy when you want to share it to proof-readers. This can be done on google doc/hedgedoc [0] for sure, but then when porting there are very often typos creeping in.

[0] https://hedgedoc.org/

Maybe Hedgedoc will fit these needs? You can use markdown to format. https://hedgedoc.org/

If self-hosting is an option for you I would recommend that you go with HedgeDoc. Completely open source, you get all the features you asked for including real time collaboration.

You can give HedgeDoc (https://hedgedoc.org/) a try as a replacement for Google Docs.

It is the one that works best for concurrent editing IMO (but it is markdown which can be a problem for some)

I use one singular HedgeDoc document for that purpose. It's not exactly the same intent as Google Keep, but it's an awesome project I use anyway and fills the role perfectly for me personally.

HedgeDoc is a web-based, self-hosted, collaborative markdown editor. This open-source option allows a team to easily share ideas on notes, graphs and presentations in real-time. troubleshootmertr finds it a good option "for knowledgebase."

HedgeDoc [0] allows you to collaborate in markdown, and also create slides.

[0] https://hedgedoc.org/ and https://demo.hedgedoc.org/slide-example?both

For writing Markdown documents I use Hedgedoc.