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:
> 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.
>Or it can result in spec which helps everyone instead of just MS alone.
Just MS alone? DirectX helps hundreds of millions of gamers, a whole bunch of game and application developers and companies.
That's like saying improvements to the Linux kernel help only the Linux kernel.
>Vulkan is done from scratch, and so far I see no signs of them making mistakes of OpenGL
Huh, how do you see that? The spec is developed behind closed doors by corporate folks each with their own interests. Even the W3C holds open discussions with specs.
A real alternative would be for the FOSS/Linux dev community to create and implement a standard properly.
Yes. How can you use DirectX on non MS platforms? If MS wanted to help someone besides themselves, you could answer that question in a satisfactory fashion. But of course, they don't care about it, they only care about lock-in. Trying to pretend that lock-in serves anyone besides those who push for such lock-in is highly disingenuous.
> Huh, how do you see that?
From what was published about it so far (origin in Mantle, collaborative input of those who know better and so on).
> A real alternative would be for the FOSS/Linux dev community to create and implement a standard properly.
Linux community was involved. In fact the main link in this post is from one of the contributors to Wayland and Mesa who was working on Vulkan.
Other folks are beating about the bush, so I'll just come out and say it:
Linux is basically irrelevant to game developers.
Other folks have been nice, but let's just be clear here. Linux's graphics story is a stupid joke, the driver story is a stupid joke, the 3D story by way of OpenGL is a stupid joke, audio is a stupid joke.
That's why it doesn't matter if you can only use DirectCX on MS platforms--because by reaching only that teensy tiny vast majority of installed computers, devs can do well.
MS has always treated their developers better than anything in the 'nix or BSD ecosystem, and that extends to better thought-out and implemented APIs.
Sorry, but that's the world we live in, and in reality there is little point in MS worrying about a non-DX API--and little point in supporting one if you're making games for PC.
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.