On 31 May 2017 at 05:32, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> 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
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?

Reply via email to