4 ms·

> I've read that generally opengl is just easier to use than vulkan [here's](https://learnopengl.com/code_viewer_gh.php?code=src/1.getting_started/2.2.hello_tr

> I've read that generally opengl is just easier to use than vulkan [here's](https://learnopengl.com/code_viewer_gh.php?code=src/1.getting_started/2.2.hello_triangle_indexed/hello_triangle_indexed.cpp https://learnopengl.com/code_viewer_gh.php?code=src/1.gettin...) an opengl triangle rendering example code (~200 LOC) [here's](https://vulkan-tutorial.com/code/17_swap_chain_recreation.cpp https://vulkan-tutorial.com/code/17_swap_chain_recreation.cp...) a vulkan triangle rendering example code (~1000 LOC) ye it's fair to say opengl is a bit easier to use ijbol

zozbot234 3y ago
This is a bit misleading. Much of the extra code that you'd have to write in Vulkan to get to first-triangle is just that, a one-time cost. And you can use a third-party library, framework or engine to take care of it. Vulkan merely splits out the hardware-native low level from the library support layer, that were conflated in OpenGL, and lets the latter evolve freely via a third party ecosystem. That's just a sensible choice.
- MindSpunk 3y ago
  And often those LOC examples use GLFW or some other library to load OpenGL. Loading a Vulkan instance is a walk in the park compared to initializing an OpenGL context, especially on Windows. It's incredibly misleading. If you allowed utility libraries for Vulkan to compare LOC-to-triangle Vulkan would be much closer to OpenGL.
  - flohofwoe 3y ago
    It depends on the operating system. On macOS and iOS it was always just a few lines of code to setup a GL context. On Windows via WGL and Linux via GLX it's a nightmare though. Linux with EGL is also okay-ish.
- mort96 3y ago
  I mean you're literally suggesting that people should use a third-party framework/engine/library because writing all the Vulkan boiler plate yourself is too hard.
_gabe_ 3y ago
You’re getting downvoted for some reason, but OpenGL is absolutely easier. It abstracts so much (and for beginners there’s still a ton even with all the abstraction!). No need to think about how to prep pipelines, optimally upload your data, manually synchronize your rendering, and more with OpenGL, unlike Vulkan. The low level nature of Vulkan allows you to eek out every bit of performance, but for indie game developers and the majority of graphics development that doesn’t depend on realtime PBR with giant amounts of data, OpenGL is still immensely useful. If anything, an OpenGL-like API will naturally be developed on top of Vulkan for the users that don’t care about all that stuff. And once again, I can’t stress this enough, OpenGL is still a lot for beginners. Shaders, geometric transformations, the fixed function pipeline, vertex layouts, shader buffer objects, textures, mip maps, instancing, buffers in general, there’s sooo much to learn and these foundations transcend OpenGL and apply to all graphics rendering. As a beginner, OpenGL allowing me to focus on the higher level details was immensely beneficial for me getting started on my graphics programming journey.
- scheeseman486 3y ago
  It won't be OpenGL-like, it will probably just be OpenGL https://docs.mesa3d.org/drivers/zink.html https://docs.mesa3d.org/drivers/zink.html
exDM69 3y ago
Drawing conclusions from a hello world example is not representative of which API is "easier". You are also using lines of code as measure of "ease" where it's a measure of "verbosity". Further, the OpenGL example is not following modern graphics best practices and relies on defaults from OpenGL which cuts down the lines of code but is not practical in real applications. Getting Vulkan initialized is a bit of a chore, but once it's set up, it's not much more difficult than OpenGL. GPU programming is hard no matter which way you put it. I'm not claiming Vulkan initialization is not verbose, it certainly is, but there are libraries to help you with that (f.ex. vkbootstrap, vma, etc). The init routine requires you to explicitly state which HW and SW features you need, reducing the "it works on my computer" problem that plagues OpenGL. If you use a recent Vulkan version (1.2+), namely the dynamic rendering and dynamic state features, it's actually very close to OpenGL because you don't need to configure render passes, framebuffers etc. This greatly reduces the amount of code needed to draw stuff. All of this is available on all desktop platforms, even on quite old hardware (~10 year old gpus) if your drivers are up to date. The only major difference is the need for explicit pipeline barriers. Just to give you a point of reference, drawing a triangle with Vulkan, with the reusable framework excluded, is 122 lines of Rust code including the GLSL shader sources. Another data point from my past projects, a practical setup for OpenGL is about 1500 lines of code, where Vulkan is perhaps 3000-4000 LOC where ~1000 LOC is trivial setup code for enabled features (verbose, but not hard). As a graphics programmer, going from OpenGL to Vulkan has been a massive quality of life improvement.
- justsid 3y ago
  I also am a graphics programmer and lead Vulkan developer at our company. I love Vulkan. I wouldn’t touch OpenGL with a 10 foot pole. But I also have years of domain expertise and OpenGL is hands down the better beginner choice. The Vulkan hello triangle is terrible, it’s not at all production level code. Yeah, neither is the OpenGL one, but that’s much closer. Getting Vulkan right requires quite a bit of understanding of the underlying hardware. There’s very little to no hand holding, even with the validation layers in place it’s easy to screw up barriers, resource transitions and memory management. Vulkan is fantastic for people with experience and a good grasp of the underlying concepts, like you and me. It’s awful for beginners who are new to graphics programmers.

zozbot234 3y ago

This is a bit misleading. Much of the extra code that you'd have to write in Vulkan to get to first-triangle is just that, a one-time cost. And you can use a third-party library, framework or engine to take care of it. Vulkan merely splits out the hardware-native low level from the library support layer, that were conflated in OpenGL, and lets the latter evolve freely via a third party ecosystem. That's just a sensible choice.

MindSpunk 3y ago
And often those LOC examples use GLFW or some other library to load OpenGL. Loading a Vulkan instance is a walk in the park compared to initializing an OpenGL context, especially on Windows. It's incredibly misleading. If you allowed utility libraries for Vulkan to compare LOC-to-triangle Vulkan would be much closer to OpenGL.
- flohofwoe 3y ago
  It depends on the operating system. On macOS and iOS it was always just a few lines of code to setup a GL context. On Windows via WGL and Linux via GLX it's a nightmare though. Linux with EGL is also okay-ish.
mort96 3y ago
I mean you're literally suggesting that people should use a third-party framework/engine/library because writing all the Vulkan boiler plate yourself is too hard.

_gabe_ 3y ago

You’re getting downvoted for some reason, but OpenGL is absolutely easier. It abstracts so much (and for beginners there’s still a ton even with all the abstraction!). No need to think about how to prep pipelines, optimally upload your data, manually synchronize your rendering, and more with OpenGL, unlike Vulkan. The low level nature of Vulkan allows you to eek out every bit of performance, but for indie game developers and the majority of graphics development that doesn’t depend on realtime PBR with giant amounts of data, OpenGL is still immensely useful. If anything, an OpenGL-like API will naturally be developed on top of Vulkan for the users that don’t care about all that stuff. And once again, I can’t stress this enough, OpenGL is still a lot for beginners. Shaders, geometric transformations, the fixed function pipeline, vertex layouts, shader buffer objects, textures, mip maps, instancing, buffers in general, there’s sooo much to learn and these foundations transcend OpenGL and apply to all graphics rendering. As a beginner, OpenGL allowing me to focus on the higher level details was immensely beneficial for me getting started on my graphics programming journey.

scheeseman486 3y ago
It won't be OpenGL-like, it will probably just be OpenGL https://docs.mesa3d.org/drivers/zink.html https://docs.mesa3d.org/drivers/zink.html

exDM69 3y ago

Drawing conclusions from a hello world example is not representative of which API is "easier". You are also using lines of code as measure of "ease" where it's a measure of "verbosity". Further, the OpenGL example is not following modern graphics best practices and relies on defaults from OpenGL which cuts down the lines of code but is not practical in real applications. Getting Vulkan initialized is a bit of a chore, but once it's set up, it's not much more difficult than OpenGL. GPU programming is hard no matter which way you put it. I'm not claiming Vulkan initialization is not verbose, it certainly is, but there are libraries to help you with that (f.ex. vkbootstrap, vma, etc). The init routine requires you to explicitly state which HW and SW features you need, reducing the "it works on my computer" problem that plagues OpenGL. If you use a recent Vulkan version (1.2+), namely the dynamic rendering and dynamic state features, it's actually very close to OpenGL because you don't need to configure render passes, framebuffers etc. This greatly reduces the amount of code needed to draw stuff. All of this is available on all desktop platforms, even on quite old hardware (~10 year old gpus) if your drivers are up to date. The only major difference is the need for explicit pipeline barriers. Just to give you a point of reference, drawing a triangle with Vulkan, with the reusable framework excluded, is 122 lines of Rust code including the GLSL shader sources. Another data point from my past projects, a practical setup for OpenGL is about 1500 lines of code, where Vulkan is perhaps 3000-4000 LOC where ~1000 LOC is trivial setup code for enabled features (verbose, but not hard). As a graphics programmer, going from OpenGL to Vulkan has been a massive quality of life improvement.

justsid 3y ago
I also am a graphics programmer and lead Vulkan developer at our company. I love Vulkan. I wouldn’t touch OpenGL with a 10 foot pole. But I also have years of domain expertise and OpenGL is hands down the better beginner choice. The Vulkan hello triangle is terrible, it’s not at all production level code. Yeah, neither is the OpenGL one, but that’s much closer. Getting Vulkan right requires quite a bit of understanding of the underlying hardware. There’s very little to no hand holding, even with the validation layers in place it’s easy to screw up barriers, resource transitions and memory management. Vulkan is fantastic for people with experience and a good grasp of the underlying concepts, like you and me. It’s awful for beginners who are new to graphics programmers.