[badsectoracula]

The OpenGL API is standardized and has multiple implementations so it isn't susceptible to some layer/library developer waking up one morning and deciding to break the API to make it "cleaner" or "easier" or whatever.

Hell, even though Khronos tried to do exactly that with the core/compatibility schism, pretty much all existing implementations decided breaking people's code is a stupid move and mostly ignored it (Apple being an exception but Apple hates developers[0] and their OpenGL implementation was always awful - even then, Apple's implementation is still an implementation of a stable API).

In practice it means that your currently working code will remain working in the future and there are good chances that you'll be able to port it in other places with either official or unofficial implementations.

[0] OK, OK, i know, Apple doesn't "hate" developers, they just do not care about them at all and they'd happily break things like a hippo dancing in a glassware shop if they believe that would make their own developers feel better.

[bitwize]

Multiple implementations suck because implementors rarely aim for full compliance, and now you have to have as many code paths as there are implementations to account for the differences between them. Best to have a single implementation that everybody agrees on -- like the winner of the graphics API wars, Direct3D.

[imtringued]

I don't know what you are talking about. Direct3D is Windows only. Metal is iOS and Mac only. Vulkan is in theory supported on all platforms but UWP doesn't allow it and Mac requires a compatibility wrapper.

If anything the graphics API war is still going on.

[pjmlp]

Vulkan is only supported on the Switch, in what concerns game consoles.

And even there one can choose GL 4.5 and NVN as well.

Most native titles end up going with NVN.

[Reelin]

> Best to have a single implementation that everybody agrees on -- like the winner of the graphics API wars, Direct3D.

Ah yes, D3D, well known for its broad cross platform support! In all seriousness, would a Linux D3D driver even be legal? I have to assume that major legal or technical barriers exist, otherwise why wouldn't a GPU vendor have developed one at some point?

[Nullabillity]

Mesa actually does support D3D9 natively for AMD (and, sort of, Intel) GPUs via the Gallium Nine project, and there is a branch of Wine that uses it.

But these days that's mostly superseded by DXVK (which implements D3D9 through 11 over Vulkan, kind of like Zink in the OP) and VKD3D (D3D12 over Vulkan).

[imtringued]

D3D drivers for Linux exist but it's through a compatibility layer. https://github.com/doitsujin/dxvk

[Reelin]

I don't think a compatibility layer implemented in software is the same as a driver implemented by the vendor that interacts directly with the hardware.