On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 00:12:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/29/2017 3:52 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
How about calling it D-GPU ? I bet you'd get a lot more
clicks on a name like that.
Thanks, I called it dcompute because naming things is right up
there with cache invalidation.
Calling it D-GPU would be misleading because there should be
no reason you can't use the generated SPIRV on DSPs, FPGAs and
whatever else there is an OpenCL runtime for.
From https://github.com/libmir/dcompute :
"This project is a set of libraries designed to work with a
modified ldc to enable native execution of D on GPUs (and other
more exotic target of OpenCL, hereafter just 'GPUs')."
OK, I should probably reword that.
The clicks should be rectifiable with a good title and
description.
Many years ago, D immutable types were called 'invariant'.
People always asked what invariant meant, and we'd reply
"invariant types are immutable" and then they'd understand.
After going through that for the thousandth time, we renamed
'invariant' to 'immutable', and the questions ceased.
The trouble is, all I usually see is simply "DCompute". I have
to click on a link or do some searching to see what it is for.
There's nothing to suggest that it's for me if I'm interested
in using D for FPGA programming. Google isn't going to index it
under "FPGA".
I'm sorry about being pushy about this, but I really want
DCompute to succeed, and the current name will impair this.
Having the right name and branding is extremely important.
A descriptive title could be:
"D-GPU: native D code running on GPUs, FPGAs and DSPs"
Well the GitHub project description is "Native execution of D on
GPUs" I don't want to do false advertising for features that I
don't have yet but I will update to reflect this, I'll be
surprised if google doesn't pick up on 'dlang fpga' along with
DHDL.
there are also GitHub topics [1] which I will also properly fill
out. I just done a pass over the README.md
[1]: https://github.com/blog/2309-introducing-topics
