It should also be noted that the responses he posted there were paraphrased so don't read too much into the exact wording.
While it is true that it is easier to write code that might have hazards and races and so on, it's probably more relevant to stability that a thinner driver/API means that developers have more insight into what is "complicated magic" vs. the simple fast paths and will naturally tend to avoid doing the former. In previous APIs a lot of complicated code paths got invoked simply because developers were not aware of them, and these are the sorts of things that lead to robustness issues.
So while I do agree that there is a tradeoff here - and it's not necessarily the right one for every developer - I don't generally agree with the statement that it's more likely that bugs will appear.
That's not exactly true... although I admit that "safe" was probably not the best word choice.So basically DX12 gives developers more rope to hang themselves with and has more opportunities for bugs to appear. Excellent
While it is true that it is easier to write code that might have hazards and races and so on, it's probably more relevant to stability that a thinner driver/API means that developers have more insight into what is "complicated magic" vs. the simple fast paths and will naturally tend to avoid doing the former. In previous APIs a lot of complicated code paths got invoked simply because developers were not aware of them, and these are the sorts of things that lead to robustness issues.
So while I do agree that there is a tradeoff here - and it's not necessarily the right one for every developer - I don't generally agree with the statement that it's more likely that bugs will appear.