bgfx VS angle

Sort of, I'd recommend a modern higher level API. I'm not sure what the current recommended ones are (probably bgfx), but assuming the wrapper is "low level enough", then the concepts you learn are still going to apply.

https://github.com/bkaradzic/bgfx for just that FOSS intermediate rendering library (includes Minecraft)

BGFX: Pretty mature and easy to use with many backends.

bgfx. I have not used it, but I have heard good things about it.

There's kind of a lack of this for C++ in 3D, I think it's often due to the necessity of a secondary scripting language in game engines with C++, which isn't necessarily needed in Java or C#. SFML is like that (but also 2D), Godot is similar (but more geared towards 2D). Ogre3D is an actual engine like I mentioned earlier, not sure how easy it is to use. Cocos2d is higher level, but is also 2D only. I'm not fond of SDL, it feels like a windowing library with slow old school immediate mode stuff attached, so it ends up not being good at the rest of the tacked on things. SDL is popular as a windowing library, and it's why you see it used everywhere (but the most notable uses of it aren't using their drawing capabilities), I often see bgfx thrown around, and for you it might be a good choice, though I have no experience with it.

Another route could be using an abstraction over Vulkan (faster, more efficient, more difficult): bgfx, dawn, magma, or wgpu (Rust).

now, java is actually quite a performant language and even if its not most of the performance bugs in mc are due to it being single threaded, inefficient chunk generation and optimizing, and it built ontop of opengl WHICH isn't much of a performance hit but its still ehh idk it doesn't matter that much (NOW SWITCHING THE GAME TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GRAPHICS API WOULD SUCK ASS TO DO (and vulkan is quite verbose :))) (AND also bgfx would probably be better due to it being an abstraction layer ontop of all the graphics apis so minecraft could target many depending on your platform (and also bedrock used to (or still does i dont know) use bgfx before they switched to just two (IF IM READING MC WIKI RIGHT BECAUSE IM NOT ENTIRELY SURE IF THEY USE BGFX STILL ?? SO THEY COULD STILL BE TARGETING MULTIPLE YET THEY JUST WROTE THEIR NEW SHIT BAD IDK))

It's using MoltenVK on Mac for Vulkan compatibility, and ANGLE for OpenGL compatibility on Windows and Linux. Makes you wonder what it's actually doing itself.

Can't they use https://github.com/google/angle?

BTW. For the last 15 years, all web browsers on Windows do WebGL on top of DirectX (using the Angle library https://github.com/google/angle).

You can still use OpenGL. Just not the vendor provided drivers. They are indeed horrible. There are libraries like:

* ANGLE ( https://github.com/google/angle ) - An OpenGL ES implementation with Direct3D 9, Direct3D 11, Desktop GL, GL ES, Vulkan and Metal backends. This is what we used to use for shipping our Qt 3D application, that used a bunch of OpenGL Shaders. We used to get bug reports about various shaders not working properly on various hardware. After switching to this, all those bug reports vanished.

* Zinc ( https://www.supergoodcode.com/do-not/ ) - A more recent, OpenGL implementation on top of Vulkan. I haven't used this one yet. But they are making a lot of progress and it is almost as performant as vendor provided OpenGL Drivers these days. So if I ever have to ship a desktop app, needing opengl, I'd strongly consider using this.

Another option if perf isn't a big concern is to try using Google's angle OpenGL ES 3.0 implementation, there's backends for it to be supported on Vulkan, Direct3D 11, and (work in progress) Metal. Disclosure, haven't tried it myself, just looking at their feature descriptions: https://github.com/google/angle

I don't believe Chrome uses OpenGL directly- any OpenGL usage it does have (e.g. for WebGL) is actually going through ANGLE which translates it all to D3D on Windows.

RTFM, have you read their instruction