That said, there are a few voices hear bemoaning the fact that this update still isn't up-to-par with the latest native API abilities or whatnot.
These kind of comments remind me of comments complaining about artificial intelligence not being useful because it can't do x/y/z (ie - something that a human can do), and so it is worthless.
Never mind the fact that when x/y/z tasks are demonstrated, the goal posts are moved to a/b/c...
I see the same thing here with WebGL. Personally, I feel this is unfair. Instead of complaining about what it can't do, instead one should work with it and push it to do what it can do. I dare-say that in the hands of talent, the current WebGL could easily do things that would be almost considered "impossible". By talent, I mean those who really push the capabilities of hardware and software, pulling tricks and such to maximize the apparent capability (demoscene).
Even with that taken off the table, though - WebGL (even 1.0) can still do things and represent ideas and worlds in enough detail to be fun for a game or other use. I feel that those who complain will always complain. Instead, those who can - use it! So what if it isn't perfect; I dare say that a Infocom's Zork is a better game than many of today's triple-A FPS shooters or whatnot! Graphics aren't everything; if you know what you are doing, you can make a compelling and fun game today without them - there are plenty of recent IF titles to attest to that.
I sometimes wonder if the complaints aren't excuses or something; that developers are complaining about WebGL because they don't want to move the the platform of the web browser (for some reason)? So any excuse not to develop on the platform is a valid excuse? Perhaps. For me, what I see in WebGL is extreme promise; in fact, it holds it right now, with WebGL 1.0 - if more people would just develop for it.
Maybe I'm just biased, having grown up with computers from a time when the idea of 3D graphics was either simple wire-frames or other slow software rendering - or you dropped many thousands to tens-of-thousands of dollars on hardware to get output that wouldn't even be worthy of the old-school Quake engine. For me, what I see with WebGL blows me away, despite it not being "realistic". It's realistic enough for me to see compelling action and stories developed with it.
...and with native API access? Well - what little I have seen (because I run *nix and you don't see much there) - it's amazing. One day it will be on the browser too. But what we have already available, in the right hands, should be more than enough. So quit complaining, and get to creating.
/personally wish I had the talent to work in this field...