Shaders, WebGPU Components for React, Vue, Svelte, Solid, JavaScript and Framer

It's unclear where the boundary is between the open source repo and the paid product. Which is which and can the repo be used without the product?

The overuse of abstract decorative shaders is a great example of where LLMs work well to implement a previously niche and inaccessible form of programming where the results can be imperfect yet good enough and then easily fine-tuned with dials by a non-expert. These are the new signature of an LLM generated SaaS product landing page, bonus points for the visualization subtly changing based on your mouse position.

• m00dy · 3 hours ago

  how about wasting gpu and cpu ?

  • asdf88990 · 3 hours ago

    I hate aislop as much as the next graybears but beauty and design matters, and just as important is respecting, if not understanding, that subjective nature of it. CPU and GPU in the service of visuals are far more well spent than bombing and spying on people, for example

20 years ago front-end devs really took that "front-end is not real programming" statement personally... All of this could have been avoided had we just gotten a "good job" and a pat on the back when we showed our jquery scripts! Jokes aside, looks impressive!

I do love shaders, but not on my web pages where I usually just want to read some text. Sites with these things inevitably turn into a massive jank fest unless you're running the latest supercomputer, and even then that can sometimes not be enough.

I'm genuinely curious — do people really prefer this HTML-style syntax like <LinearGradient colorA="#0f172a" colorB="#7c3aed" /> <CursorTrail /> I appreciate that React & Co. have established it as a standard. I've used A-Frame lately, which lets you build WebVR components, and even there you declare your scene as <a-scene> <a-box position="-1 0.5 -3" rotation="0 45 0" color="#4CC3D9"></a-box> <a-sphere position="0 1.25 -5" radius="1.25" color="#EF2D5E"></a-sphere> </a-scene> and I feel this is getting a bit much. Wouldn't it be better to have a JS API that lets you define objects and properties and compose your shader / scene etc. programmatically? (I've seen that Shaders offers that too — just asking in principle.)

• drawfloat · 1 hour ago

  Personally I don't mind it, but would say the main advantages offered by JSX for this kind of work (see: React Three Fiber) are more in its ease of composition and structuring larger projects. Often in R3F projects you'll end up running per frame animations via the normal declarative property API in the useFrame hook anyway, as adjusting props in a loop is not great for performance. The JSX instead becomes a way to easily understand the hierarchy and nesting of objects, as well as quickly mount/unmount new elements.

• LtdJorge · 17 minutes ago

  I prefer it to be declarative

I am on a $3k Macbook and scrolling on shaders.com yielded a few frames of blank screen jank before the rest of the page rendered. This is unacceptable performance for serious websites, but I appreciate the new heights that webshit attains each year.

If the demos don't work, your browser works as it should because it is blocking third-party cookies and the site does not serve valid CORS headers for ev.shaders.com.

These are very cool visually but I’m honestly struggling to imagine ways to use this without it being a gimmick.

• totetsu · 31 minutes ago

  When you want to so something visually intensive, its a much less computationally intense to use shaders than do everything in vanilla JS, so you can get faster render times or realtime performance. for example I was playing around with visualizations of Turing patterns and Drost images.