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:

 N: D-GPU
 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.

OK, I get that a portion of the community seems to think that dcompute is either too generic, is too easily passed over by the fact that it doesn't mention GPUs or otherwise could be named better. I am more inclined to be persuaded by the fact that everybody that has actually done GPU programming has said that it makes sense to them.

But can we please reduce the bike shedding, that was not the point of this announcement, which was to bring together people interested in contributing to either the runtime libraries, LDC or LLVM and become familiar with goals, expected route of development and infrastructure.

Perhaps there will be scope for renaming if/when this also includes graphics when either OpenCL is merged into the Vulkan API or Petar Kirov gets Vulkan SPIRV generation going on LLVM, but for now the name stays.

Nic

Reply via email to