5 ms·

The main motivation is OpenGL being removed from macOS at some point.

• gravypod 6y ago
  I'd assume there's other considerations because if that were the only concern why not go with Vulkan, an industry standard? https://github.com/KhronosGroup/MoltenVK https://github.com/KhronosGroup/MoltenVK Battery life might be a good reason
  • pvg 6y ago
    For this sort of thing, adding another layer of indirection (and another dependency, developed elsewhere with potentially different priorities) is much more likely to end up being a 'now you have two problems' kind of scenario.
    • hvis 6y ago
      But they would have both a macOS port and a cross-platform Vulkan port then. "Two birds, one stone" kind of scenario. And it's hard to imagine Java2D would have more complex requirements for Metal than the games that are already using MoltenVK.
      • Macha 6y ago
        OpenGL is still "fine" on Windows and optimal on Linux (which if their survey is accurate, are both larger platforms for them than Mac https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2020/ https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2020/ ). Of course, they could go full dx12 on Windows, Vulcan on Linux and Metal on Mac, but precisely because their needs are not that demanding in the graphics department, I imagine the incentive is to keep it simple
        • hvis 6y ago
          The Vulkan drivers should be at least as available as OpenGL on both Windows and Linux. So it would make sense to target Vulkan and thus benefit from a shared codebase. And if their Mac client base is not big, it should make even more sense to experiment with MoltenVK (lower risk). Anyway, they probably have good reasons for that choice. Just wondering what those are. Perhaps Oracle is not big on relying on community projects like MoltenVK?
  • p1necone 6y ago
    From what I understand MoltenVK is not super efficient compared to native Vulkan on other platforms.