4 ms·

> OpenGL is steaming ancient garbage Not really by any standard. It is about as good as other APIs of a similar level of abstraction (certainly no fair compari

> OpenGL is steaming ancient garbage Not really by any standard. It is about as good as other APIs of a similar level of abstraction (certainly no fair comparison with X11), and crucially it is widely supported. OS X's support for OpenGL is very poor (they are behind on standards by more than half a decade, despite shipping hardware that supports all the new stuff) because Apple has been hostile to it, just as they are not interested in enabling Vulkan in any way (though that hasn't stopped the industry from routing around Apple's tremendous narcissism).

klodolph 8y ago
I like OpenGL probably as much as the next developer, probably more. I’ve long been an advocate. But I still think it’s a bunch of steaming ancient garbage, the same way OpenSSL is. Apple stopped bundling OpenSSL and the message was, “if you want it that badly, bring your own.” That turned out to be a good move, and the people who stuck with OpenSSL paid the price. OpenGL will continue to be available for a long time. But the idea that you would want to develop new applications for it… well, the mismatch between the OpenGL API and the way modern GPUs work is just too big. You can paper over the small problems with a bunch of small changes but at this point I think it’s extremely fair to say, “you want OpenGL, be prepared to bring your own implementation.” This is a good thing, we are getting OpenGL implementations on top of e.g. Vulkan, Metal, DX12 that are going to be more consistent and easy to target than all the differences between vendor OpenGL implementations. It’s extra work for developers but I believe it’s better for long term platform health. It just makes more sense for OpenGL to be a fat library, and it makes things easier if you can target one version of the library instead of five. Again, this is basically what happened with OpenSSL.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > But I still think it’s a bunch of steaming ancient garbage Compared to what? Direct3D? I don't think it is fair or reasonable to compare OpenGL to libraries which exist on a completely different level of abstraction. The last straw for OpenSSL was in the implementation, not the API design, so I don't really understand the comparison.
  - megaman22 8y ago
    OpenGL is absolutely inferior to DirectX. If for no other reason than it is impossible to figure out the correct, modern way to do things in OpenGL. The only saving grace is that OpenGL is kinda sorts cross-platform. If your platform provides drivers that are worth a shit, which has been a big question.
    - microcolonel 8y ago
      > OpenGL is absolutely inferior to DirectX. If for no other reason than it is impossible to figure out the correct, modern way to do things in OpenGL. Well, I guess I would just say I disagree. I am relatively new to graphics programming, and the right thing was the first thing I found, every time. The most confusing part reading people warning people not to use compatibility contexts at the beginning of articles from the transitional period. > The only saving grace is that OpenGL is kinda sorts cross-platform. If your platform provides drivers that are worth a shit, which has been a big question. This bit I largely agree with, but even if it were the worst it's ever been (and it's not), it would still be better than implementing your application twice or thrice. I have been lucky enough to be on Mesa (primarily) for the last eight or so years, and driver quality has been of minimal concern to me.

klodolph 8y ago

I like OpenGL probably as much as the next developer, probably more. I’ve long been an advocate. But I still think it’s a bunch of steaming ancient garbage, the same way OpenSSL is. Apple stopped bundling OpenSSL and the message was, “if you want it that badly, bring your own.” That turned out to be a good move, and the people who stuck with OpenSSL paid the price. OpenGL will continue to be available for a long time. But the idea that you would want to develop new applications for it… well, the mismatch between the OpenGL API and the way modern GPUs work is just too big. You can paper over the small problems with a bunch of small changes but at this point I think it’s extremely fair to say, “you want OpenGL, be prepared to bring your own implementation.” This is a good thing, we are getting OpenGL implementations on top of e.g. Vulkan, Metal, DX12 that are going to be more consistent and easy to target than all the differences between vendor OpenGL implementations. It’s extra work for developers but I believe it’s better for long term platform health. It just makes more sense for OpenGL to be a fat library, and it makes things easier if you can target one version of the library instead of five. Again, this is basically what happened with OpenSSL.

microcolonel 8y ago
> But I still think it’s a bunch of steaming ancient garbage Compared to what? Direct3D? I don't think it is fair or reasonable to compare OpenGL to libraries which exist on a completely different level of abstraction. The last straw for OpenSSL was in the implementation, not the API design, so I don't really understand the comparison.
- megaman22 8y ago
  OpenGL is absolutely inferior to DirectX. If for no other reason than it is impossible to figure out the correct, modern way to do things in OpenGL. The only saving grace is that OpenGL is kinda sorts cross-platform. If your platform provides drivers that are worth a shit, which has been a big question.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > OpenGL is absolutely inferior to DirectX. If for no other reason than it is impossible to figure out the correct, modern way to do things in OpenGL. Well, I guess I would just say I disagree. I am relatively new to graphics programming, and the right thing was the first thing I found, every time. The most confusing part reading people warning people not to use compatibility contexts at the beginning of articles from the transitional period. > The only saving grace is that OpenGL is kinda sorts cross-platform. If your platform provides drivers that are worth a shit, which has been a big question. This bit I largely agree with, but even if it were the worst it's ever been (and it's not), it would still be better than implementing your application twice or thrice. I have been lucky enough to be on Mesa (primarily) for the last eight or so years, and driver quality has been of minimal concern to me.