http://games.greggman.com/game/webgl-2d-vs-3d-libraries/

The short if it is, a library’s purpose is make it so you don’t have to have any knowledge of how it does the thing it does. You don’t need to know how physics work to use a physics library. You just give it shapes, masses and forces and it handles the rest. You don’t know how a sorting library works to use it. You just tell it to sort and it sorts. So, similarly, a 3D library does 3D for you without you having to know 3D. That’s true of Three.js, Unreal, Unity, Even OpenGL 1.0 but it is not true for OpenGL ES 2.0 nor WebGL.

If there’s anything I’ve learned from online discussions, it’s the pointlessness of semantic discussions.

There are valid arguments for calling WebGL a 3D API.

There are also valid arguments for calling WebGL a 2D API.

In the end, it depends on how you define “3D API” or “2D API”.

Without first agreeing on the definition, any discussion on the matter is pointless.

Kid: “Dad? Can I use the computer?”

Dad: “No son, you have your own iPad”

Even if Mom or Dad says the kid can use the computer when then kid is exploring on his own with his iPad most opportunities to do the very things that probably every single engineer that worked on that iPad did as a kid is not available to the kid using the iPad.

I mean, if kids were to get an iPad… would that mean they never would have a computer? Or would it mean they are less exposed?

Could it not also be the case that some of these kids see their favourite apps in the app store, decide they want to be a part of that, then go off and learn? Obviously impossible in a household where there is nothing but iDevices…

I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, and am genuinely curious as to what effect this could be having.

Anyway, great post! I know it’s kind of an older post, but still thought-provoking.

I mean, I agree with you 100% that if computers were a closed environment way back when then we would have experienced seriously crippled growth in tech. In fact, if all we had now was the closed off iOS we experience today then the same issue would rear its ugly head.

However, to quote you on a reply to another comment:
“if everyone acted like [Apple] tons of innovations would not happen”

Correct. But everyone isn’t acting like them. The fact is, whilst iOS is closed, OTHER OS’ (ie. Android) are open. Because of this, I find no issue with Apple remaining closed. Androids openness has its pros and cons, as does Apples closed OS. But the fact that we live in a world where both paradigms (somewhat) co-exist, we continue to see innovation from both sources.

I personally like the different “flavours” of growth and innovation we get from the suits behind closed doors, and by the open-sourced community.

As for specific examples, I’m talking about iOS specifically. Mac is still open. But look at it this way. iPads are super popular, so popular that many children will be given an iPad instead of a computer. Those children will not be exposed to programming because programming environments are not allowed on iOS. How many less programmers will there be because of this and how many of those possible programmers would have gone on to create amazing innovations? We’ll never know.

The point of the OP is a thought experiment. If all systems were as closed as iOS there’d be a lot less innovation.