I just cant seem to decide which one. Its either opengl+sdl or DirectX
What I like about OpenGL is that u can use outdated code or techniques and it will still run. So I dont have to keep on constantly keeping up with changes(staying on top of changes is exhausting, especially when programming isn't your income). Also sdl is easier, than again lack of books


Then on the other hand, DirectX has all documentation. All the books I wanna read use DirectX. So that's also a big deal. But DirectX keeps on changing. By the time I get the hang of it, directx12 will be out. If I were to write an engine in dx9, it would one heck of a time to get it to dx11 and add its features.
honestly what would u guys do?

also is sdl + Direct3d(just direct3d, no directsound,input, etc etc) possible

SDL + Direct3D should work.
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/apis-and-tools/direct3d-90-with-sdl-r2249

I'm not sure its a great idea though.

D3D may use a different API every major version, but that doesn't mean that you have to. D3D9 is still well-supported and has been very stable for a decade or so now, for example, so if you wanted to learn that then go right ahead - there's nothing forcing you to jump to a higher version.

IMO, learn OpenGL > 3.2. Everything except the Microsoft systems use OpenGL, better to learn 3D graphics via OpenGL and then learn Direct X when you need to.

While this is in principle true, I generally advise that when you're learning you're better off just forgetting about portability, at least for the first few programs. Your primary task is to learn, not to be portable, and if you worry over much about being portable then you're taking on a whole slew of additional headache that is just going to detract from the job of learning.

Of course helper frameworks/etc make this issue fade a little into the background, but despite that I believe that the basic core of it still stands - focus on what you're learning, not on whether or not it's portable.

I would consider having OpenGL as your most familiar graphics API is better because of wider support and it is easier to get going with in my experience - It is more fun to learn with OpenGL and there are usually less "WTF is going on??" moments.

I'd suggest qualifying this statement a little.

GL has wider support in terms of platform availability for sure, but in terms of driver quality and assuming Windows, D3D is ahead.

Regarding it being easier to get started, that could be said to be true if you're referring to glBegin/glEnd code, which D3D has no equivalent of. However, many people would advise that learning glBegin/glEnd stuff is actually a case of learning the wrong thing, and when you compare glBegin/glEnd to modern OpenGL, the difference between GL and D3D becomes virtually non-existent.

So if you're referring to glBegin/glEnd, then it needs to be made clear that you'll get started for sure, but you'll quickly enough hit a point from which you can't really go forward.

Isolating the discussion to the modern versions of each API (by which I mean we're talking about VBOs, shaders, render to texture and GPU computing), the APIs are equivalent with D3D being slightly stronger with documentation (I'd dock marks for the awful D3D11 documentation) and substantially far ahead for tools/etc.

I did say learn OpenGL > 3.2, not the glBegin/glEnd rubbish.

I still, personally, think GL is easier to learn even with the modern way of doing things in GL is easier and clearer.

I'm not going to get into a row about OpenGL vs DirectX. They are both graphics APIs, they do exactly the same job.

True, I grant you that.

I dont care about cross platform, just about backwards compatibility