dcompute VS magnum

Shameless plug: LDC (the LLVM based D compiler) can already target CUDA (and OpenCL) and wraps its API and all of the nasty details involved in replicating <<<>>> kernel launches with https://github.com/libmir/dcompute/ with a sane syntax that's type safe. LLVM handles the codegen, and all of the "magic" is done in the library.

As noted elsewhere it seems your experience is somewhat outdated: the releases of the LLVM D Compiler (one of the two compilers worth using for production builds, the other being GDC) are buffered to the bugs introduced in DMD (which is more stable than it used to be although there are still regressions), and there is a fork based GC available for linux, but as the GC will only ever trigger on allocation, don't use it and it won't collect.

> While C++ is not by any means a great meta-language, it's improved considerably since that time.

C++ has also painted itself into a corner multiple times too, which despite being technically an improvement over the status quo are lacking severely in their utility. C++ screwed up "constexpr if" big time by always introducing a scope (which costs you a pair of {}'s in the rare occasion you need one) which means you can't conditionally insert declarations (i.e. variables, structs/classes, functions).

> but beyond the novelty you'd hardly find a mature or reliable codebase written by a team of professionals using hacks like [string manipulation and mixins].

They are a wonderful hack when you need them and nothing else will do what you want. This is not unlike resorting to macros in C++, except that its hygienic, unlike macros.

I'm not claiming the project is mature and I'm only one person, but reliable definitely out there. The most heinous set of string mixins i've ever written[1] has definitely got to be the code for generating wrappers to call the OpenCL object property querying functions (clGetDeviceInfo & friends). You need to pass a size and a void pointer to the address of the return object that you have to call once, twice or more (depending on the type of the queried property) to figure out how much memory you need to allocate to call it again.

The important thing is that the interface[2] you use to drive this code generation is very clean and return on investment for getting the generic case correct is large.

[1]: https://github.com/libmir/dcompute/blob/master/source/dcompu...

Magnum

If you want something that gives you more control you could use magnum.

Therefore, in terms of artist mindshare, Blender is the leading open source 3D creation program, but not the leading 3D creation program. I think Godot is already in a similar situation, and has been for a few years now. In comparison, most other open source game engines have focused on providing low-level functionality. These certainly fulfill a niche, but in my experience, most people want something that works at a higher level and comes with a built-in editor.

Magnum is worth checking out.

Since you want something lightweight, I'll assume you mean the former. If that's the case, then checkout bgfx or Magnum. Magnum does include some extra features typically found in a graphics engine.

You could try Magnum it wraps SDL and others, but you might find it maybe too low-level. It's certainly not Love2D.

C++ is similar to C in that there are multiple "styles" of use that vary from project to project. Other, usually newer languages (C#, Python, Rust, etc) tend to have a stronger sense of what idioms should be used. Whereas, for instance, some C++ projects (like some GUI libraries and game/graphics engines) will partially/entirely replace the STL (and older ones may have been around before C++ had a standard library aside from C's), or forbid the use of certain C++ features (example).

Magnum Graphics

> He has Vulkan support in here with a clearly marked file named Pipeline.cpp. The guy knows what a pipeline is...

There is a Vulkan API wrapper. However, there is no "Vk Renderer" -- no code seems to use the Vulkan parts of the code system, and the two projects seem unrelated.

> * Is this not a UBO interface?

There are ways of making a uniform buffer, however the examples don't cover them and the API doesn't adapt automatically. See how all of the setters assert if UBOs are enabled.

https://github.com/mosra/magnum/blob/cfc02599e54e02337dd56bb...

> * I don't see why you think there's limited support for multiple framebuffers...?

The code I do see is about binding/unbinding framebuffers in a stateful manner, e.g. AbstractFramebuffer::bind(), rather than supporting passes.

> None of your criticism seem well intentioned. It might behoove you to give people the benefit of the doubt and realize that you may be able to learn something from them, even if they're so clearly inferior to you.

To put it simply, I've taught enough graphics to know first-hand the kinds of misconceptions that OpenGL-styled APIs can cause, and I'm just a bit tired to see it continue. Admittedly I was a bit harsh, I don't mean any harm towards the author. There are just graphics APIs with interfaces I consider to be much better designed.