There can certainly be a temptation to read one of these posts -- and with the author being a bit of an authority on the subject matter and all -- conclude that we have the final story and assume the worst. I would recommend tempering such thoughts.
Certainly it would be preposterous to say that OpenGL is above criticism or already a perfect API or completely free of opportunities to reduce inefficiencies, but these ideas going around about how it is fundamentally broken and needs to be redone from scratch or whatever are just silly.
Many of these criticisms aren't even that substantial (IMO) and seem to more reflect the immaturity of OGL experience in the contemporary game developer community than a fundamental API failure.
Look on the bright side at least: OGL is faster than D3D. He could have least concluded his article with that fact. A broken API is faster than D3D. What does that say about D3D?
Certainly it would be preposterous to say that OpenGL is above criticism or already a perfect API or completely free of opportunities to reduce inefficiencies, but these ideas going around about how it is fundamentally broken and needs to be redone from scratch or whatever are just silly.
Many of these criticisms aren't even that substantial (IMO) and seem to more reflect the immaturity of OGL experience in the contemporary game developer community than a fundamental API failure.
Look on the bright side at least: OGL is faster than D3D. He could have least concluded his article with that fact. A broken API is faster than D3D. What does that say about D3D?
Comment