Direct X Vs. Open GL?
I want to start learning a grapihcs API, I pretty much only program on windows so portability dosn't bother me and my programming skills are to basic to worry about all the little things that differ the two.
iv'e had a bit of experiance with allegro and found it rather easy, but i want to learn something i can expand into 3d later on at the moment im mainly just focused on bitmaps and 2d stuff, but the main question here is...
As far as coding goes is it easier to learn\code Open GL or Direct X?
There is the story about how John Carmack re-wrote Quake using openGL instead of DX and supposedly reduced parts of the codebase by 80-90%, implying somethings are easier in GL.
However, that was more than 10 years ago and presumably DX has improved in this sense. I only know GL so I can't make a personal comparison.
From personal experience (for what it's worth), I found OpenGL to be a bit easier to kick start off with. But they eventually get just as hard as each other.
None is easier or faster than the other IMO. OpenGL has more free resources on the web, but the msdn and the directx sdk has very good documentation. Although if you are serious about learning you will need books, and there are books out there for both opengl and directx.
Its all a matter of taste and what youre goal is, if you want to write portable code opengl is the way to go. DirectX has better native support for loading things like textures, models aswell as capturing input among others.
Start with one, go with it for a while, see if you like it, if you dont try the other one and see if you like that better. This may seem like a waste but trust me, the concepts behind rendering 3D models in directx are the same in opengl, even if the function-calls are different, so you will still have learned stuff even if you dont like the library you learn with.
Why don't you care about portability? You see no advantage in exploiting the iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad market?
Closed. Please don't bump old threads.