> The hard truth is that OpenGL 3.0 was far too tame when it came to breaking compatibility. That is your opinion, mine is that breaking compatibility is the w

> The hard truth is that OpenGL 3.0 was far too tame when it came to breaking compatibility. That is your opinion, mine is that breaking compatibility is the wrong answer in all but the most extreme cases (of which OpenGL was not). Keep in mind however that i am talking about OpenGL. IMO they should have indeed created a more low level API similar to Vulkan back in 3.0, but instead of calling it OpenGL 3.0 they should have called it something else (like, i dunno, Vulkan :-P) and left OpenGL 3.0 alone to be an easy to use and fully backwards compatible API without creating an unnecessary schism (like the one we have with Apple/Mesa and everyone else today). Of course that is what they eventually did with Vulkan, but i'd rather have that without the damage that they made to OpenGL. > Instead of clinging to OpenGL 1.x or 2.x for no good reason I have a good reason, i already explained it in my post. > you should really switch to a high level drawing library or rendering engine That library already exists and is called OpenGL with the compatibility profile. The only problem is that it isn't supported by every vendor that claims OpenGL support.