Exactly. It's going to be much more productive for someone totally new to 3D graphics to play with three.js and learn all about models, meshes, textures, shaders, coordinate spaces, cameras, etc. If you're starting with webgpu or even webgl you're going to get mired in eccentricities of buffer management, byte formats, etc. which are important plumbing but just that--plumbing.

depends on your objective, doesnt it? if you eant to learn how things work & what the fundamnetals are, im not sure that a big engine or framework "taking care of the details" is going to be as illuminating.

also, from the article, some poditive reinforcement about trying WebGPU:

> I got my feet wet and found that I didn’t find WebGPU significantly more boilerplate-y than WebGL, but actually to be an API I am much more comfortable with.

sometimes, there aint nothing like going to the source, finding out for yourself. is it the fastest way to get a job done? perhaps not. but the school of lifelong learning & struggles has it's upsides, can be a path towards a deeper mastery.

"depends on your objective, doesnt it? "

Sure, thats why I said "probably".

Anyone who wants the most performance and raw power needs to get to the source.

But most people using WebGPU are probably fine with a framework, that hides all the details. Like threejs did for webGL.