On 31 May 2017 at 05:32, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 07:23:42PM +0000, Jack Stouffer via > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 18:06:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > > > 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! > > > > This was literally what happened to me when I saw the headline. > > I confess the first conversation was also my reaction when I saw the > name "DCompute". I thought, "oh, this is some kind of scientific > computation library, right? That comes with a set of standard numerical > algorithms?". Programming GPUs did not occur to me at all. > I'm becoming suspicious that people who don't interact with this technology just don't know the terminology deployed in the field. I think this is natural, and part of learning anything new. But if it's not possible to select terminology that is intuitive to both parties, *surely* the users/consumers of some technology should be first priority in terms of not confusing them with industry-non-standard terminology? Users who are unfamiliar have already demonstrated that they likely have no specific interest in a field (or they'd be aware of the conventional terminology at least), and why would you cater to that crowd as the expense of the actual users?