So reading this:

> [Vulkan] really is overkill for learning 3D graphics...using modern OpenGL to introduce all the standard concepts, vertices, triangles, textures, shaders, fragments/pixels, the transformation pipeline etc. first is much better than trying to teach them Vulkan and graphics at the same time...

...got me wondering. I haven't really kept up with modern graphics programming, but my - possibly incorrect - understanding was that not only is Vulkan lower-level than OpenGL, it was also motivated by lots of questionable design decisions that OpenGL was kind of stuck with. So, with the above quote in mind, is it the case that:

* Vulkan is good (?) but too low-level for most users.

* OpenGL is a good environment to learn or do nuts & bolts 3D programming in - i.e. it's the right level of abstraction for that - but is kind of a mess.

Is that correct? Is there anything that splits the difference? How's Direct3D these days? Metal? Has anyone built a library on top of Vulkan, targeted roughly around the abstraction level of OpenGL, but with a better design?

This is a very nice comparison for people looking to explore Vulkan...even versus native frameworks like Metal (on OSX).

P.S. I dont think OpenGL is supported on OSX anymore. However Vulkan has MoltenVK which works on OSX - https://github.com/KhronosGroup/MoltenVK MoltenVK is officially supported and is a big part of the Vulkan Portability initiative - https://www.vulkan.org/portability

MoltenVK is fully production ready. Multiple games use MoltenVK to run on OSX using Vulkan. Including the big one - DOTA 2 (https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2021/09/dota-2-to-drop-opengl-...). The bug tracker for DOTA2/Vulkan is here - https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Dota-2-Vulkan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDGQcjqpYqI (M1 macbooks running moltenvk games)