←back to thread

579 points seanisom | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.814s | source

I used to work at Adobe on the infrastructure powering big applications like Photoshop and Acrobat. One of our worst headaches was making these really powerful codebases work on desktop, web, mobile, and the cloud without having to completely rewrite them. For example, to get Lightroom and Photoshop working on the web we took a winding path through JavaScript, Google’s PNaCl, asm.js, and finally WebAssembly, all while having to rethink our GPU architecture around these devices. We even had to get single-threaded builds working and rebuild the UI around Web Components. Today the web builds work great, but it was a decade-long journey to get there!

The graphics stack continues to be one of the biggest bottlenecks in portability. One day I realized that WebAssembly (Wasm) actually held the solution to the madness. It’s runnable anywhere, embeddable into anything, and performant enough for real-time graphics. So I quit my job and dove into the adventure of creating a portable, embeddable WASM-based graphics framework from the ground up: high-level enough for app developers to easily make whatever graphics they want, and low-level enough to take full advantage of the GPU and everything else needed for a high-performance application.

I call it Renderlet to emphasize the embeddable aspect — you can make self-contained graphics modules that do just what you want, connect them together, and make them run on anything or in anything with trivial interop.

If you think of how Unity made it easy for devs to build cross-platform games, the idea is to do the same thing for all visual applications.

Somewhere along the way I got into YC as a solo founder (!) but mostly I’ve been heads-down building this thing for the last 6 months. It’s not quite ready for an open alpha release, but it’s close—close enough that I’m ready to write about it, show it off, and start getting feedback. This is the thing I dreamed of as an application developer, and I want to know what you think!

When Rive open-sourced their 2D vector engine and made a splash on HN a couple weeks ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39766893), I was intrigued. Rive’s renderer is built as a higher-level 2D API similar to SVG, whereas the Wander renderer (the open-source runtime part of Renderlet) exposes a lower-level 3D API over the GPU. Could Renderlet use its GPU backend to run the Rive Renderer library, enabling any 3D app to have a 2D vector backend? Yes it can - I implemented it!

You can see it working here: https://vimeo.com/929416955 and there’s a deep technical dive here: https://github.com/renderlet/wander/wiki/Using-renderlet-wit.... The code for my runtime Wasm Renderer (a.k.a. Wander) is here: https://github.com/renderlet/wander.

I’ll come back and do a proper Show HN or Launch HN when the compiler is ready for anyone to use and I have the integration working on all platforms, but I hope this is interesting enough to take a look at now. I want to hear what you think of this!

Show context
doctorpangloss ◴[] No.39909710[source]
> If you think of how Unity made it easy for devs to build cross-platform games, the idea is to do the same thing for all visual applications.

But why wouldn't I "just" use Unity?

I agree with you. Nobody cares about the platform specific details anymore, and people are willing to pay a little bit of money for an end-all-be-all middleware. I have gone my whole life not paying attention to a single Apple-specific API, and every single time, someone has written a better, more robust, cross-platform abstraction.

But Unity is already this middleware. I already can make a whole art application on top of Unity (or Unreal). People do. Sometimes people build whole platforms on top of Unity and are successful (Niantic) and some are not (Improbable). You're one guy. You are promising creating a whole game engine - you're going to get hung up on not using the word game engine, but that is intellectually honest, it is a game engine - which a lot of people 1,000x better capitalized than you have promised, and those people have been unable to reach parity with Unity after years of product development. So while I want you to succeed, I feel like a lot of Y Combinator guys have this, "We make no mistakes, especially we do not make strategic mistakes." It's going to be a long 3 years!

replies(3): >>39909846 #>>39909921 #>>39912541 #
seanisom ◴[] No.39909921[source]
Without going into the motivations for building a startup and doing Y Combinator, I do agree with many of your points.

People can use Unity to build games and non-games. I personally don't think it fits a lot of different use-cases or application models and that it tends to be most successful in specific gaming verticals, but if it works well for you, by all means use it!

I'm strategically betting both on the lines between what is viewed as a game and not blurring, as well as developers needing a friendlier, more flexible way of building this kind of interactive content. I'm by no means under the illusion that strategic mistakes won't be made, or that this won't be a 10-year+ journey - realistically many (most?) successful companies have a very nonlinear path, including Unity themselves.

replies(1): >>39910523 #
1. mentos ◴[] No.39910523[source]
I agree Unreal and Unity are not appropriate but I do wonder about Godot. Its early enough where it doesn't have the strong connotations of being a game engine yet. I've seen some cool applications made in it too (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kKp0oguzr8). So I wonder if you could apply your energy to making it more cross platform using WASM (if that's even necessary) and extend it with your own UI language instead of rolling your own?
replies(1): >>39911825 #
2. seanisom ◴[] No.39911825[source]
I think Godot is the closest thing to this today, and I agree, would love to work with them! Particularly on the Wasm and packaging side of things.