glow VS unsafe-code-guidelines

You can absolutely do WebGL. glow is a good place if you want to do the webgl stuff yourself. With wgpu you can as well, though it is mostly targeted to the upcoming WebGPU standard. I have seen many crates that are capable of gltf loading, but I haven't used any yet. Hence I can't reall recommend one. But gltf capability does not really have anything to do with rust. As long as you can read a file and translate it to your engines scene/entity structure, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to load gltf files.

Most of it is written in Rust and compiles to Wasm with WebGL/OpenGL bindings via glow. The settings panel is written in Elm and the whole project is compiled with Nix. There’s also a very basic native desktop app. I haven’t seen many examples of a complete setup like this, so hopefully this can serve as a template for anyone trying out a similar stack.

If you want to target desktop, mobile and/or web: https://github.com/grovesNL/glow

A/B Street, which comprises a UI library, lots of data import pipelines, and traffic simulation. 100k LoC, the only unafe is to make system calls through glow

https://github.com/grovesNL/glow/blob/main/examples/howto/src/main.rs :)

https://github.com/grovesNL/glow is used by wgpu for its OpenGL ES / WebGL backend

By the way, nowadays many projects use glow instead of glutin because of.. I think it's because glow works on wasm, in the web (as webgl).

But what glow actually does is highlighted on lines 66 to 123. This section is filled with gl.some_function() calls, which is the same on every platform.

Useful context on the Rust side is this issue [1]. It sounds like some of the author's concerns are addressed already.

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/4...

Is this captured by one of the known soundness conflicts? If not then should consider adding it to the list.

There are some competing proposals for different memory models. Stacked borrows is the current proposal, but there are more work in the approproate WG.

Thank you /u/RalfJung for bringing formal methods to Rust, both through models like Stacked Borrows, by developing miri, and by working on unsafe-code-guidelines which aims to specify exactly what is and isn't allowed in unsafe code (surprisingly, it's an open question as 2023!)

You could imagine some way to make this safe for example automatically convert &'short &'long mut T to &'short &'short T, but it's non-trivial to prove they are safe at all, not to mention ensuring this is correctly implemented in the compiler. If you're interested there's also a discussion on whether the opposite (& & T to & &mut T) is sound here.

Agreed! MIRI is so good, it still feels like magic to me. It also comforts me that the Rust team takes improving unsafe semantics seriously, with the past Unsafe Code Guidelines WG and today's operational semantics team (t-opsem).

I think there are some aspects of this rule that are still undecided. See for example:

- https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/8...

- https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2732

C is much better specified than unsafe Rust. Some things are just not worked out yet in Rust. This may sometimes even bite very experienced devs, such as this issue with Box's aliasing semantics, which tripped up the author of left-right.