Good idea too. Make it clear that they are doing things differently.
Good idea too. Make it clear that they are doing things differently.
Currently Khronos answer for those that don't want to become such experts it to stick with OpenGL, the problem is that is isn't gettting much updates beyond 4.6, and Vulkan is not getting a more developer friendly API.
Most devs will be better by choosing a middleware engine and just check the respective box of the desired graphics API backend.
I think the best middleground between OpenGL and middleware engines are translation layers such as gfx-rs and bgfx, which offer a low-level but userfriendly API and can compile to several different graphics API backends.
In practice, like 15 years ago, you can use Mesa3D which remains as comprehensive and unexciting as ever with constantly improving performance thanks to using Vulkan.
In the more mainstream part of practice, rendering engines get rid of OpenGL to use Vulkan because it's usually better.
It's not going to be 'dumbed down', sure, but developer-friendly APIs may still be possible through higher-level systems like Unreal Engine, no?
Plenty of developers will benefit from Vulkan without mastering it. I presume they already have.
...not talking about the idea to first test out new ideas in vendor-specific extensions, and then elevate them to the core, this is definitely a good idea - but about stacking new stuff on the previous API version, this approach is what turned OpenGL into the heap of accumulated cruft it is today.
Direct3D instead was a new API with each new major version, which in the beginning sounded insane, but turned out the better decision in the end because that made it possible to discard the cruft (the crucial part is that old API versions are frozen but still supported).
Direct3D is mostly used for games so if your new game has to use a new API that's not _that_ big of a deal. You don't start from scratch every couple years with regular software though.