Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ginko 3791 days ago
Proprietary APIs can't be a replacement to an open industry standard.
3 comments

In practice, the word "open" in "Open Standards", such as OpenGL or Vulkan, doesn't mean very much. For example, being able to vote, participate in the specs' working group, or access the conformance tests costs a considerable amount of money[1].

APIs such as DirectX or Metal receive just as much or more input from developers, albeit mostly through back channels or explicit reach out by Microsoft, Apple, etc.

[1] https://www.khronos.org/members/join/

The conformance tests are open source and will be available from day 1 ;)

As far as participating in the design of the standard, are you really saying you'd want everyone and their mother to have their word? I think it's best to leave this to GPU vendors and engine implementers, as they're the ones who know how it can work.

Well OpenGL regardless of urban myths has been mostly ignored by the games industry, except on iOS, Android and indies before the rise of middleware due to lack of proper tooling.

So lets see how Vulkan will improve it.

I'm pretty sure that DirectX is a living, breathing counterexample to that claim.
I'm pretty sure you missed the point...
And how exactly can you use it on Linux or any other non MS system? It's an example of the disgusting practice of using development tools for lock-in.
Or it can be a very nice object based API instead of a state based API that made sense in 1992 as the slide deck said and certainly didn't make any sense in 2008 when the industry group Khronos sided with the commercial CAD industry to screw over Linux consumer gaming because there was no money in it. How was that DirectX's fault again?

I am guess you're not a game developer and your post is yet another case of [1].

I am a game dev and here are some links that show to non game devs why DirectX is more popular:

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2711231

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opengl-directx,2019.html

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/linus-...

> Or it can be a very nice object based API instead of a state based API

That's exactly what Vulkan is. So where is MS voicing their support?

> I am a game dev

So did you ask MS why they didn't join Vulkan working group?

And I'm not sure what was your point in those links about OpenGL. We are talking about Vulkan.

Perhaps because design by a committee of peers usually results in a fragmentation and compatibility nightmare like this:

Edit: The below blog redirects HN referrers to a funny image macro, copy paste the link instead.

https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/06/i-have-ported-xscreensaver-...

The delayed spec hasn't even been released yet and Nvidia is already making Vulkan extensions on its own.

https://developer.nvidia.com/engaging-voyage-vulkan

> Perhaps because design by a committee of peers usually results in a fragmentation and compatibility nightmare like this

It can. Or it can result in spec which helps everyone instead of just MS alone. Depends on how it's done. Vulkan is done from scratch, and so far I see no signs of them making mistakes of OpenGL. I guess we'll see more once it's released. Either way, what's the alternative? There is none, unless of course you work for MS and envision them controlling everything.