> While over-all better alternatives to both languages exist, none of them are in a place to replace *HLSL* or *GLSL*. Either because they are vendor locked, or because they don't support the traditional graphics pipeline. Examples of this include *CUDA* and *OpenCL*.
Are CUDA and OpenCL really "better alternatives" to HLSL and GLSL?
CUDA and OpenCL are compute languages; HLSL and GLSL and shader languages. And while one can theoretically do compute in a shader (and we used to!) or shaders in a compute language, I think it's dishonest to claim that CUDA is intended as an updated alternative to GLSL. It's simply apples and oranges.
> GLSL is dead end, Khronos is on the record they aren't going to develop it further, even for Vulkan, HLSL and now slang, are the way forward.
I've been seeing more comments like yours saying GLSL is a dead end, and it’s making me question whether I should keep learning it.
But at the same time, it’s still very accessible, well-documented, and used in OpenGL demos and educational content. Would you say there's still a case for GLSL in hobby projects, demoscene work, or rapid prototyping? Or is it really time to move on even in those contexts?
Are CUDA and OpenCL really "better alternatives" to HLSL and GLSL?
CUDA and OpenCL are compute languages; HLSL and GLSL and shader languages. And while one can theoretically do compute in a shader (and we used to!) or shaders in a compute language, I think it's dishonest to claim that CUDA is intended as an updated alternative to GLSL. It's simply apples and oranges.