[DEADMINCE]

> SDL and Vulkan are equivalents to DirectX, to state otherwise is itself preposterous.

SDL and Vulkan are no where close to being equivalent to DirectX. What they are is useful in some scenarios, and good alternatives to some parts of DirectX.

It's not preposterous at all, and I'm sorry to say you clearly have a lack of knowledge in this area to claim otherwise.

Since that's beyond clear to me with your last reply, I'm just going to bow out of this discussion at this point. Good luck.

[scheeseman486]

"equivalent" was the word used by one of the developers working on the Proton stack during a conference talk on the subject. Which is correct usage, since "equivalent" doesn't only mean exactly the same in every way but can also mean equivalent in purpose, which they are.

That is literally what your whole point is leaning on, taking a narrow definition of the word equivalent and spinning up a take that makes you feel right about yourself (meanwhile throwing an accusation at me re: abusing semantics). It's so desperate and stupid.

[DEADMINCE]

> "equivalent" was the word used by one of the developers working on the Proton stack during a conference talk on the subject.

Yeah? You got a source? Can you show it wasn't in a particular limited context and was used in the same sense you are using it now?

> Which is correct usage, since "equivalent" doesn't only mean exactly the same in every way but can also mean equivalent in purpose, which they are.

Nah. They are still not even close to being equivalent in purpose. SDL is a little closer, since it wants to be the API for all aspects of gaming and 3d development, but it isn't quite there. Before you double down on your point, maybe you should really look at everything DirectX offers, and everything the alternatives you claim to be equivalent offer.

> That is literally what your whole point is leaning on, taking a narrow definition of the word equivalent and spinning up a take that makes you feel right about yourself (meanwhile throwing an accusation at me re: abusing semantics). It's so desperate and stupid.

LOL! You've described yourself here and only yourself. I'm not the one arguing semantics. You claimed two things were equivalent, which are not. I simply pointed that out, and instead of just taking the L you, and only you, are arguing semantics. I absolutely agree, it is desperate and stupid.

How about just...actually supporting your claim, if you really believe you are correct? You know, instead of arguing semantics, or trying to deflect and falsely accuse me of doing so?