I rather use APIs that embrace OO, offer math, font handling, texture and mesh APIs as part of SDKs instead of forcing developers to play Lego with libraries offered on the wild.
> Khronos isn't a company—it's a standards body. As NVIDIA is a member of Khronos, "Khronos" did bother to create a C++ API.
I guess that is one way of selling the story.
But it's not "pure C". C is just the glue. You can use the C++ API if that's what you want, and you have a completely object-oriented API.
Can Linux never have an "OO interface" because all syscalls trap into a kernel written purely in C? Of course not, that would be silly. The same is true here. If you program against an object-oriented C++ interface, then you have a fully object-oriented API.
I find interesting that a Rust designer thinks otherwise.
You can easily call into something with a C ABI (er, OS ABI designed around C, or whatever is the correct technical name) from any language. Try that with C++ :D
C++ provides better tools to write safer code than C ever will.
I would rather be using Ada, Rust, System C#, D, <whatever safe systems programming language>, but until OS vendors start providing something else, C++17 will have to do.
Since 1994 I only write C code when forced to do so.
> The whole discussion around which API to use isn't that relevant when discussing about game development proposals.
OK, so if the graphics API doesn't matter, why did your parent comment participate in the graphics API war?
(BTW, I agree with you that the graphics API doesn't matter too much anymore. But I think if you're going to attack Vulkan, you should do so based on specific technical reasons.)
> If NVidia hadn't made their C++ wrapper available, I very much doubt Khronos would have bothered to create one of their own.
Khronos isn't a company—it's a standards body. As NVIDIA is a member of Khronos, "Khronos" did bother to create a C++ API.