upvote

points

by ZeroCool2u10 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby nu11ptr10 hours ago|
next
[-]
From the PR, it sounds like the switch to WGPU is only for linux. The team was reluctant to do the same for macOS/Windows since they felt their native renderer on those platforms was better and less memory intensive.
reply
upvoteby swiftcoder10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> they felt their native renderer on those platforms was better and less memory intensive

This definitely would be worth some profiling. I don't think it's a given that their custom stacks are going to beat wgpu in a meaningful way.

reply
upvoteby nicoburns7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> This definitely would be worth some profiling. I don't think it's a given that their custom stacks are going to beat wgpu in a meaningful way.

They probably will for memory usage. Current wgpu seems to have a floor around ~100mb that isn't there with other rendering backends (and it was more like ~60mb with wgpu a few months / versions ago).

Not sure if this is fixable in wgpu, or do with spec compatibility (my guess would be that it's fixable, just not top priority for the team atm).

reply
upvoteby flohofwoe9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
WebGPU has some surprising performance problems (although I only checked Google's Dawn library, not Rust's wgpu), and the amount of code that's pulled into the project is massive. A well-made Metal renderer which only implements the needed features will easily be 100x smaller (in terms of linecount) and most likely faster.
reply
upvoteby pjmlp9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There is also the issue that it is designed with JavaScript and browser sandbox in mind, thus the wrong abstraction level for native graphics middleware.

I am still curious how much uptake WebGPU will end up having on Android, or if Java/Kotlin folks will keep targeting OpenGL ES.

reply
upvoteby MindSpunk8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
WGPU is just a layer over the top of the native APIs on any given platform so unless Zed's DirectX/Metal renderers were particularly bad it's unlikely WGPU will be better here.
reply
upvoteby swiftcoder8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not saying it would be better, I'm saying it may not be particularly much worse. Which still might make it worth simplifying everything by settling on one rendering abstraction
reply
upvoteby 9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby vitorsr9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Please elaborate, I am curious to why would you think WebGPU would meaningfully beat their Metal/DirectX renderers.
reply
upvoteby swiftcoder8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I don't think it would, but I don't think it's a given that their homegrown renderer is wildly more performant either - people tend to overestimate the performance of naive renderers
reply
upvoteby ChadNauseam4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
wgpu isn't a renderer though, it's an abstraction layer. It's honestly hard for me to imagine it ever being faster than writing directx or metal directly. It has many advantages, like that it runs in browsers and is memory safe (and in the case of dawn, has great error messages). But it's hard for it to ever be as fast as the native APIs it calls for you.
reply
upvoteby 9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby ZeroCool2u10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yes, but they can add a flag to switch renderers on startup like they had for blade.
reply
upvoteby rafaelmn9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Rendering in the browser has nothing to do with being able to do remote editing like you can in VSCode - you would just be able to edit files accessible to the browser.

Just like you can hook up local VS code native up to a random server via SSH, browser rendering is just a convenience for client distribution.

You would need a full client/server editor architecture that VS code has.

reply
upvoteby nahuel0x8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Zed already has a client/server editor architecture: https://zed.dev/docs/remote-development
reply
upvoteby 9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby nindalf10 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Quoting maddythewisp from that PR:

> There is significant work beyond the renderer that would need to happen to run Zed in a browser - notably background tasks and filesystem/input APIs would need web/wasm-compatible implementations.

reply
upvoteby arghwhat10 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Well, not really. It means you have a renderer that is closer to being portable to web, not an editor that will run in web "with some additional work". The renderer was already modular before this PR.
reply
upvoteby ethmarks6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
A web port is apparently already on their roadmap: https://zed.dev/roadmap#:~:text=Zed%20on%20the%20Web
reply
upvoteby ZeroCool2u5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I didn't realize that, super exciting!
reply
upvoteby usefulcat9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
If you're talking about remote editing (editing files which reside on a remote server), Zed already supports that?
reply
upvoteby Octoth0rpe9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I believe they're referring to running Zed entirely in a browser. This opens up possibilities like using zed for something like codepen, or embedding it into a git web frontend like gitea. Many projects like this basically embed vscode, a rare benefit of being an electron app which Zed is not.
reply
upvoteby ZeroCool2u9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Exactly.
reply
upvoteby readitalready10 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Can this be done on a cheap AWS EC2 instance?
reply
upvoteby ZeroCool2u10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure it takes very little hardware power to do this, but Zed isn't actually setup for this yet. This is in theory and after a few more API's are adapted.
reply