From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Sympa-To: caml-list@inria.fr
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p3RL94sL031565
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:09:04 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmIKAI+FuE2tyzrO/2dsb2JhbACYQ40mCHepB5tUhXYEhgOITooiO4Nv
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,276,1301868000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="106938070"
Received: from mail.ashimagroup.net ([173.203.58.206])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 23:08:58 +0200
Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54])
	(Authenticated sender: sheets@ashimaarts.com)
	by mail.ashimagroup.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F3BCC003
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:19:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ywf7 with SMTP id 7so1204344ywf.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.131.18 with SMTP id e18mr2370559ybd.316.1303938536295;
 Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.157.5 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110427205537.GB8872@yeeloong.happyleptic.org>
References: <fa.6Y/ymCKnZgZmswumjjdnkchP1wI@ifi.uio.no>
	<f4f20ee4-05d9-474e-a143-a4dbe077f32c@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
	<BANLkTinLGk9mArx83R0gNjKRpv6eg9YLaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110427171618.GA4078@yeeloong.happyleptic.org>
	<BANLkTikqnLsADbYULr6K1XPYcOP=0icsKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110427205537.GB8872@yeeloong.happyleptic.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:08:56 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinVELFYn09AFZTJfc=tKJuW4TU1EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Sheets <sheets@ashimaarts.com>
To: rixed@happyleptic.org
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Validation-by: kosmo.zb@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Pros and cons of different GL bindings ?

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:55 PM,  <rixed@happyleptic.org> wrote:
> I really like the idea of compiling an ocaml subset into GLSL but I
> don't see why the very same compiler should be limited to webgl. Isn't
> webgl using the same shading language than stock opengl ?

Sorry if I was unclear in my earlier message. The compiler will not be
limited to webgl; one could use the same shaders (perhaps after
stripping comments) in any OpenGL ES 2 or later implementation. Our
current interests are for typed tagless interpreters/emitters
targeting ESSL and Javascript. An emitter for desktop GL shaders (or
DirectX shaders) should not be difficult after this is done.