Why? OpenGL works just fine and there are plenty of resources about OpenGL programming all over the internet, unless you're a triple A studio, you don't need what Vulkan has to offer, it will only slow down your development by adding needless complexity.

It isn't just triple A studios moving to Vulkan. Emulator development, for one, is moving there too. RPCS3, Dolphin, etc all see big time benefits to moving to Vulkan.

OpenGL drivers are well known for being buggy as well. For a very long time, AMD OpenGL drivers on Windows were terrible and saw little love given that DirectX on Windows is where most of their effort went. It seems that Vulkan drivers are more performant, less buggy, and treated more as a first class citizen across both Windows and Linux.

And OFC, Apple deprecated OpenGL and they are stuck at 4.1 from 2011. At least with MoltenVK, you get Vulkan->Metal and a modern-day API to talk to without having to deal with Metal directly.

OpenGL doesn't necessarily vanish, it becomes a higher level abstraction instead of something graphics drivers must natively speak. I think we are all better off if graphics vendors stick with supporting primitives and let higher level tools be built on top.

I think OpenGL is important as a simple, "universal" legacy standard. As long as it's supported (with reasonable performance), through something like Zink it's fine.

As someone who is new to graphics programming, the pervasiveness of OpenGLES3/WebGL2 is really great. It's a single relatively-simple standard that is almost everywhere.

have you looked at the vulkan scenegraph thing?

Deprecate OpenGL i.e. let it be recreated on top of Vulkan in user code.

Desktop OpenGL isn't simple, it's hard to use and even harder to debug, and it doesn't have reasonable performance unless you know which APIs are mysteriously slow.

WebGL is covering up a lot of stuff for you, but it's better to find/create a modern "simple" API on top of a modern rendering API if you want one.