Talk:OpenGL

Suggested Improvements for OpenGL Article

I have a few suggested improvements for the article, but I wanted to bring them up on the talk page because they would change or remove large bodies of the text.

1. More focus pertaining to information pertaining to the specific capabilities of OpenGL and its application in the industry, IE where it is used and where other standards are preferred. Unfortunately, broad coverage of OpenGL outside of the official site and its partners seems to be scarce, and most sources in the article are from Khronos Group themselves. Maybe it's appropriate in this circumstance to use more sources like this one? This is essentially a tutorial/user guide and I wouldn't ordinarily cite it, but its contents have been published and its opening is the closest thing to a secondary source explaining the standard that I've found.
2. As suggested earlier, the version history is excessively detailed and this information is available readily elsewhere. The chart is useful for broadly understanding the evolution of the package over time, but the write-ups following it don't contribute much to a reader's understanding of the subject and probably aren't necessary. Because they make up such a large portion of the article, however, I wanted to check before attempting to remove them.
3. Rephrasing of technical details to be more accessible to readers who aren't familiar with computer graphics libraries. For instance, the section "In addition to being language-independent, OpenGL is also cross-platform. The specification says nothing on the subject of obtaining, and managing an OpenGL context, leaving this as a detail of the underlying windowing system. For the same reason, OpenGL is purely concerned with rendering, providing no APIs related to input, audio, or windowing." is good information clarifying what OpenGL does NOT have built in, but it's almost entirely jargon and would not be readily understood by a reader looking to understand what OpenGL is and what it does.

Thank you for reading; input, addition, and criticism is appreciated.

👻NebulousPhantom ^💬 17:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking interest in this article. I love your enthusiasm!

I've read your suggestions and I have some thoughts about them. Here they are:

1. I believe that the article should explain not only what an OpenGL is and what it isn't, but also why it is notable and different from other similar APIs/standards. I think you've got a good point with applications in the industry, although I worry that article could easily become too detailed for a casual reader, especially while describing specific capabilities. Thread carefully. The writeup you linked is preaty neat, as matter of fact. Still, I would prefer not to use it since it's self-published. There are a lot of results in Google Books and Google Scholar just for example. Some could be used.

1. I have a different vision about those write-ups. I think they shouldn't bother the reader with excessive changelogs, that part should be lightly described in the table. I think those write-ups should provide a history of the project itself. I think that the second part of the Longs Peak and OpenGL 3.0 section does exactly that. If nothing is to be said about a version history, then it should be removed.

1. I fully agree with this point. The article has a serious issues with being too technical and too hermetic for a casual reader.

Thanks for reading. – K4rolB (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Article needs fact checking and proofreading

Hello all. I checked the page for a quick reference a few times lately, and every time I did, I spotted an inaccuracy of one sort or another (just now corrected one more) – which means there might be many more inaccuracies which are still there. Since the page seems to be regularly maintained, and I'm by no means an OpenGL expert, perhaps it make sense to make a concentrated effort to check here all facts, dates etc.? 188.66.33.83 (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)