3 ms·
>do these technologies provide any lasting benefit While there are downsides to having these different targets, there are upsides as well. For instance on any
by gameswithgo 7y ago
>do these technologies provide any lasting benefit
While there are downsides to having these different targets, there are upsides as well. For instance on any given platform, be it Metal for IOS or DirectX for Windows, the "native" options has usually been the most bug free and best performing option. It helps when you can build something like DirectX and know that this will only run in windows. Making something cross platform like Vulkan is more effort and complexity.
The other benefit is you have different groups exploring this space. While things might have been simpler in some ways if there had only been OpenGL, OpenGL might not have been forced to evolve as much as it did. vulkan might not have happened as soon as it did, etc.
- jfkebwjsbx 7y agoMaking a graphics API cross-platform is definitely not where complexity comes from. Apple wants to have vendor lock-in, but that is not news.
- tinus_hn 7y agoObviously the statement is about building your application using a cross-platform library like Vulkan or OpenGL versus using a native library like Metal or DirectX. This has nothing to do with Microsoft or Apples vendor locks.