Sure, but that’s in the future and they aren’t not going to add Vulkan. But it makes sense to prioritize GL for now, especially because a lot of the GL work comes much easier thanks to their prior MESA work.
Even amongst your list, I don’t see mass adoption of the applications today that don’t also have a GL backend.
Blender alone will be a gargantuan uplift to get to Vulkan because so much of the ecosystem is coded agains GL directly.
This kind of experimental project above looks pretty well aligned with where things are heading, so I think focus on Vulkan would be still fitting.
Meaning by the time it will be more usable, Vulkan will be more used as well.
And as above, if you implement Vulkan - you get OpenGL through Zink. If you implement OpenGL - you still have to implement Vulkan. So with limited resources, the first option looks way more effective.
You’re looking at it from a number of implementations perspective.
They’re looking at it as a time to viable product perspective and a ROI.
These are often at odds within engineering , and it makes sense for them to pick their way because they already have a lot of the GL stuff done and it’s a faster route to a viable product.
Again, going for vulkan would mean they’d have to spend significantly more time up front.
You seem to be maximizing for not trying to do work (e.g implementing both Vulkan and OpenGL), but in many cases it’s better to get something stable and workable out.
Basically, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
I don't see OpenGL only option as something worth using seriously, so not a usable option in practice, if I can simply get hardware where Vulkan works fine.
So as a fun experiment, it can be interesting. As something practical - doesn't seem so until all pieces are in place.
Even amongst your list, I don’t see mass adoption of the applications today that don’t also have a GL backend.
Blender alone will be a gargantuan uplift to get to Vulkan because so much of the ecosystem is coded agains GL directly.