@Junru GluonNLP and GluonCV are definitely awesome toolkits. I feel we
should advertise more about these hidden treasures :)

Today there is a big initiative to publicize MXNet. I feel we should also
bring GluonNLP and GluonCV on the same boat and highlight their tight
relations with MXNet.

My two cents.

Lin



On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:08 PM Junru Shao <junrushao1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Probably we should figure out how to explain MXNet Gluon to customers. In
> this case, I agree with @Mu that
>
> 1) MXNet Gluon provides high-level API like what Keras gives to TensorFlow.
>
> 2) MXNet Gluon supports hybridization, which unifies both symbolic and
> imperative programming style.
>
> Also, about toolkits, we could mention
>
> 3) GluonNLP and GluonCV are two awesome libraries in their respective
> domain, both of which are built on MXNet Gluon. They not only provide an
> awesome exemplary codebase for customers to learn the best way to use MXNet
> Gluon, but also come with the state-of-the-art models and training
> techniques out-of-the-box.
>
> Any other ideas?
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:54 PM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to MXNet Gluon given the feedbacks and explanations from everyone so
> > far.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:09 PM Junru Shao <junrushao1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I feel like MXNet Gluon is a good name. You don't lose customers who
> have
> > > been familiar with MXNet, nor lose customers who are used to MXNet
> > symbolic.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:07 PM Davydenko, Denis <
> > > dzianis.davydze...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As subject suggests this is a proposal for re-branding of Gluon to
> > align
> > > > it with MXNet. One of the common things undertaken for re-branding
> > > > exercises is renaming. That's what my thinking behind suggesting new
> > name
> > > > for Gluon. I am sincerely curious what would be alternatives to
> rebrand
> > > > Gluon to align it with MXNet without changing its name.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/22/19, 4:57 PM, "Mu Li" <muli....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     Are you proposing to rename Gluon? I think Pedro's opinion is
> > about a
> > > >     better way to communicate what's Gluon and how it's related to
> > MXNet.
> > > >
> > > >     On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:54 PM Davydenko, Denis
> > > > <d...@amazon.com.invalid>
> > > >     wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     > I support idea of putting brands of MXNet and Gluon closer
> > together.
> > > > I
> > > >     > agree with your argument, Mu, but MXNet is quite far away from
> TF
> > > > place at
> > > >     > this time so I don’t know how well that argument is
> transferable
> > > > from TF
> > > >     > position to MXNet position.
> > > >     >
> > > >     > MXNet Imperative is definitely too restrictive of a name, we
> can
> > > > come up
> > > >     > with better one... MXNet-M for example, stands for
> MXNet-Modified
> > > > (military
> > > >     > connotation). If naming is the only thing we need to figure
> out -
> > > > that is a
> > > >     > good place to be in __
> > > >     >
> > > >     > --
> > > >     > Thanks,
> > > >     > Denis
> > > >     >
> > > >     > On 3/22/19, 4:48 PM, "Mu Li" <muli....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     Gluon is about imperative neural network training and data
> > > > loading.
> > > >     > ndarray
> > > >     >     is another large imperative module. Besides, Gluon also
> > supports
> > > >     > symbolic
> > > >     >     execution after hybridizing.  mxnet imperative might not
> be a
> > > > good
> > > >     > name for
> > > >     >     it. Another choice is high-level API, that's how TF talks
> > about
> > > > Keras.
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:38 PM Yuan Tang <
> > > > terrytangy...@gmail.com>
> > > >     > wrote:
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     > +1
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Lin Yuan <
> > apefor...@gmail.com>
> > > >     > wrote:
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     > > +1.
> > > >     >     > >
> > > >     >     > > Just to give some of my real experience:
> > > >     >     > > 1) I advertised a recent GluonNLP blog and many
> > responses are
> > > >     > "This seems
> > > >     >     > > nice. So is Gluon a new library to replace MXNet?"
> > > >     >     > > 2) We visited customers in a unicorn company who showed
> > > > interests
> > > >     > in
> > > >     >     > MXNet
> > > >     >     > > but none of the engineers knew the relationship between
> > > >     > GluonNLP/GluonCV
> > > >     >     > > and MXNet
> > > >     >     > > 3) When integrating MXNet to Horovod and adding
> > examples, I
> > > >     > received
> > > >     >     > > comments like "What is Gluon? Is it a new library in
> > > > addition to
> > > >     > MXNet?"
> > > >     >     > >
> > > >     >     > > Everyone is talking about PyTorch nowadays, but not
> > Caffe2
> > > > anymore
> > > >     >     > although
> > > >     >     > > the latter is still serving as a backend component.
> > Maybe we
> > > >     > should also
> > > >     >     > > doubledown on one brand?
> > > >     >     > >
> > > >     >     > > Lin
> > > >     >     > >
> > > >     >     > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > >     >     > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com
> > > >     >     > > >
> > > >     >     > > wrote:
> > > >     >     > >
> > > >     >     > > > Hi dev@
> > > >     >     > > >
> > > >     >     > > > We heard feedback from users that the Gluon name is
> > > > confusing.
> > > >     > Some of
> > > >     >     > > > them don't even know it's MXNet and it's unclear the
> > > >     > relationship with
> > > >     >     > > > MXNet
> > > >     >     > > >
> > > >     >     > > > Would it make sense to rebrand Gluon to just MXNet or
> > MXNet
> > > >     >     > > > imperative? Diluting brands and names is never a good
> > idea.
> > > >     >     > > >
> > > >     >     > > > There's also gluonhq which is related to JavaFX which
> > adds
> > > > to the
> > > >     >     > > > confusion, search engine friendliness is not high as
> > well.
> > > >     >     > > >
> > > >     >     > > > Pedro.
> > > >     >     > > >
> > > >     >     > >
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>

Reply via email to