Here's a short summary from a Vulkan IMPLEMENTOR on where OpenGL is better than Vulkan, and vice-versa
The only criticism in that article is that Vulkan comes with some added complexity, which is precisely why I pointed out that for people like you there is the higher level API built on top of Vulkan. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Then if you read Graham Seller's own Powerpoint AND have experience in developing LARGE applications you can see massive potential pitfalls in using Vulkan that you won't get with OpenGL
And also the massive benefits that you do get with Vulkan, so again, for people like you that can't manage the complexity and for which the benefits of Vulkan aren't an advantage there are less efficient higher level APIs for you to use.
Nope, OpenGL is more than sufficient
Not for everybody, hence the reason OpenGL (and DirectX which is wrong.
the use of the Vulkan command-buffer model gains nothing, but increases development cost.
Which is why you would use a higher level API for your use-case, problem solved. Why are you still whining about it?
Yes, OpenGL has that feature (so why use Vulkan?)
What I'm pointing out is that you citicised Vulkan for having memory barriers and now that I have educated you on the fact that OpenGL also has memory barriers you have changed your mind. You claim to be experienced yet you didn't even know this existed in OpenGL before and so criticized its existence in Vulkan. I don't expect anybody to know everything so stop pretending, you just keep looking stupid.
Sometime you should read the criticisms of the Mantle API, as this applies directly to Vulkan (which follows the same concepts), for an idea, look at this. Apple considers Metal to have better performance than Vulkan, and supposedly better than OpenGL - yet OpenGL beats Metal (and thus, Vulkan) on the discrete GPU in this benchmark
So use OpenGL (or a high level equivalent) in that case. Parallel is not always better so use the right approach for your problem, Vulkan allows this. Your issue with it is that its benefits may not be useful to you therefore they can't be useful to anybody, that is an attitude that stems from limited experience. You may be old and stuck in a rut for decades but that doesn't make you experienced.
Couple that with the fact that Apple is not supporting Vulkan (supporting OpenGL and Metal instead)
Apple's support for OpenGL is merely a token gesture, as you already pointed out they are way behind in feature support.
You think I'm "trying to convince you"? LOL !
Yes you in fact are, you respond to every one of my points and avoid my questions. Please post your criticisms on the Vulkan forums and you will see how wrong you are, apparently you "don't have time" for that but you do have time to desperately respond to me.
Vulkan is not cross-platform in the way OpenGL is (at least, it won't be for a few years).
Of course not, nobody is suggesting even getting rid of OpenGL at this stage, just having Vulkan as an option for developers for which it will be advantageous, why do you have such baseless and irrational objection to that?