That aside, i love the work, I just hate having to mentally grok the d and c style variables. As if number of chars minimum is the goal. Number of instructions yes, but we can do better than d and t.
Moonlight is beautiful.
My theory is that graphics programmers, at some point, stop having to care very much about what the textual representation of their program actually looks like. Because graphics programming is so hard, once you get to the point of understanding what you're doing, and typing in the shader, it becomes self-explanatory; you don't actually need variable names, what you need is understanding.
Inigo Quilez (author of shadertoy, and graphics programming legend) is one of the most talented graphics programmers alive, and produces some of the least readable code I've ever seen.
Just my 2c on why this is so common in graphics, specifically
Using more readable names definitely helps during development. I think the cause of this is twofold.
First, there's a lot of equations used in graphics programming where the canonical names of variables are single letters. If you know the formula a single letter is a good name and it is expected that others reading it also understand it - if you didn't you'd have to read up on the formula anyway.
But beyond that I also think it's a bit of misguided pride. Thinking it's cool to have as minimal inscrutable shader code as possible because that's trendy. It's very common for shaders to be developed with reasonable names and good layout then rewritten before publishing like it was an IOCCC entry.
For my tastes this is excessive (especially since the formatting is non-existent), but you do pay a cost for longer variable names. There's only so much you can grok when reading a passage, and long names hinder any higher-level understanding of what that passage actually does, requiring you to resort to carefully thinking about the problem rather than any shortcuts and insights your powerful visual cortex might provide.
I started playing around with GLSL recently and the closest I have come to describing working with it is that it is like creating poetry using math. Getting started was much easier than I expected, getting good results is so far as hard as expected
I started 2-3 months ago or so doing this stuff, so don't be too intimidated to start. Especially with the two articles (Red Alp and this one), it should make it more accessible, hopefully :)
Only critique is.. if you're sharing to teach, your compact/one line [460] char GLSL code is a poor delivery mechanism.
I'm glad it reaches an audience :)
> Only critique is.. if you're sharing to teach, your compact/one line [460] char GLSL code is a poor delivery mechanism.
Understandable. Though, the demos are here to illustrate "what you can do with the trick I'm sharing". It's like, I'm teaching you how to do watercolor, and illustrate it with some paintings you won't be able to perform just with that knowledge. They're meant to inspire you to create. You're not looking at a tutorial, you're looking at art.
For once instead of being shoved a ready-made solution there's a short explanation of the core idea with a live example, but instead of a fully documented shadertoy it's like the answer is ROT13'd which makes me itch for implementing a solution myself.
This is the kind of stuff I always feel I should be able to do, yet it never happened. Seeing others just do it and share their learnings is such a joy.
What's a good way to get started learning to build/customize shaders with GLSL? I have an engineering math background but I was never the best at math. And GLSL syntax looks a bit tedious to be honest, but I'd love to dive in.
I gave some directions and resources in a comment here, it might help you: https://www.reddit.com/r/GraphicsProgramming/comments/1pgqis...
> And GLSL syntax looks a bit tedious to be honest, but I'd love to dive in.
With the vectorization everywhere, it's surprisingly convenient given how simple the syntax is. I personally just miss some sinpi/cospi/etc, and/or a PI and TAU constant.