On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 18:06:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/30/2017 5:12 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
Ah, isn't English wonderful. I guess Walter is suffering the inverse of the Calvin & Hobbes "Verbing nouns weirds the language", nouning verbs does weird the language, but only to those who aren't used to that particular nouning of the verb.

Just to clarify, I find that "Compute" is not evocative of "GPU". I read "CUDA by Example" a couple years ago, and even downloaded the CUDA SDK and compiled/ran a simple program on a graphics card. But I never noticed that "Compute" had anything specific to do with GPU programming.

I fear the conversation will go like this, like it has for me:

 N: DCompute
 W: What's DCompute?
 N: Enables GPU programming with D
 W: Cool!

instead of:

 W: Cool! I can use D to program GPUs!

The problem with the first conversation is W may just move on to the next topic rather than investigate what DCompute is.

D-GPU is very misleading to people who use the GPU for its original purpose, which is graphics programming. One could assume D-GPU being an alternative to Vulkan, OpenGL, DirectX.

The term 'compute' is well established with the community of people using the gpu for, well, compute purpose. You need to ask your self if you want to attract people who understand that term and are willing to use or try it with D, or if you want to inform a broader spectrum of people that 'D' can now do some (whatever) stuff on the 'GPU'.

So +1 for DCompute, but if you insist you should definitely narrow it down to D-GPGPU.

Reply via email to