3 ms·
The persons in favor of Vulkan in this thread don't have to prove their point, you have. Their solution works, is battle tested, is cross platform and almost an
by sametmax 10y ago
The persons in favor of Vulkan in this thread don't have to prove their point, you have. Their solution works, is battle tested, is cross platform and almost an industry standard.
Unless you backup the Apple proposal with serious evidences such as :
- hard metrics on performance benefits, why you need them, and why you can't improve vulkan to get them;
- demonstration of blatant issues with the vulkan API and very good solution you can implement and why you can't improve vulkan to get them;
- strong evaluation of the benefits your solution provide given the cost it would have compared to adopting vulkan.
Then you have no credibility.
"Let's fix something that works" is rarely welcomed in programming. Coming from a company that is well known for disrespecting the rest of the world by creating their own island of closed standards and help noone pass the border, it's even worst.
On this one, you are guilty until proven innocent, I'm sorry.
- lallysingh 10y ago> On this one, you are guilty until proven innocent, I'm sorry Or rather, he's got to refute the null hypothesis.
- om2 10y agoIn the case of web standards, the null hypothesis is "no new API" rather than "make something that works only on top of this specific native API". For the web, the latter is not even the default assumption once you've decided something needs to be added. The web is cross-platform by design.
- mixedCase 10y ago>In the case of web standards, the null hypothesis is "no new API" Thanks to Apple's bone-headed decision to not support Vulkan, this is what it has come down for me when it comes to graphical APIs. For me it's either "no new graphical APIs, keep being forced to use OpenGL" or "drop macOS/iOS support".