[pjmlp]

Well, for me being based on pure C instead of the OO interfaces of other APIs it isn't something that makes me wish to use it.

I rather use APIs that embrace OO, offer math, font handling, texture and mesh APIs as part of SDKs instead of forcing developers to play Lego with libraries offered on the wild.

> Khronos isn't a company—it's a standards body. As NVIDIA is a member of Khronos, "Khronos" did bother to create a C++ API.

I guess that is one way of selling the story.

[pcwalton]

> Well, for me being based on pure C instead of the OO interfaces of other APIs it isn't something that makes me wish to use it.

But it's not "pure C". C is just the glue. You can use the C++ API if that's what you want, and you have a completely object-oriented API.

Can Linux never have an "OO interface" because all syscalls trap into a kernel written purely in C? Of course not, that would be silly. The same is true here. If you program against an object-oriented C++ interface, then you have a fully object-oriented API.

[pjmlp]

Anything that increases our dependency on C is bad.

I find interesting that a Rust designer thinks otherwise.

[floatboth]

Anything that increases our dependency on C++ is much, much worse.

You can easily call into something with a C ABI (er, OS ABI designed around C, or whatever is the correct technical name) from any language. Try that with C++ :D

[pjmlp]

No problem on Windows thanks to .NET and COM.

C++ provides better tools to write safer code than C ever will.

I would rather be using Ada, Rust, System C#, D, <whatever safe systems programming language>, but until OS vendors start providing something else, C++17 will have to do.

Since 1994 I only write C code when forced to do so.