Comment by majorchord
Comment by majorchord 7 hours ago
I think they're referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
Comment by majorchord 7 hours ago
I think they're referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
That's understandable. Control over standards has the immense value. Just like look at Nvidia's CUDA.
CUDA success has much to thank Intel and AMD for never providing anything with OpenCL that could be a proper alternative in developer experience, graphical debugging, libraries and stable drivers.
Even OpenCL 2.x C++ standard was largely ignored or badly supported by their toolchains.
Isn't the point of OpenCL to be... open? Not only did Intel and AMD not provide enough value, but neither did the community.
CUDA... is kind of annoying. And yet, it's the best experience (for GPGPU), as far as I can tell.
I feel like it says something that CUDA sets a standard for GPGPU (i.e. its visible runtime API) but others still fail to catch up.
OpenCL 2.x was a major failure across the board.
OpenGL and Vulkan were good though. Gotta take the wins where they exist.
cough cough
Remind me who owns the OpenCL trademark, again?
Intel and AMD weren't the ones that abandoned it. Speaking in no uncertain terms, there was a sole stakeholder that can be held responsible for letting the project die and preventing the proliferation of Open GPGPU standards. A company that has everything to gain from killing Open standards in the cradle and replacing them with proprietary alternatives. Someone with a well-known grudge against Khronos who's willing to throw an oversized wrench into the plans as long as it hurts their opponents.
Yes, obviously. It is an incredibly tiresome comment which is brought up every single time that Microsoft adopts any sort of open standard and it's never done with any particular insight into if this is one of the times that it'll be relevant.
Has it ever not ended up being relevant? Like, I would agree that it is kind of redundant--and thereby maybe doesn't need to be said--but if there are people who actually think "maybe this time will be different", arguably the comment should be pinned to the top of the thread as a reminder?
I know that's what they're referring to. If you're concerned about Microsoft gaining undue influence over Vulkan/SPIR-V then rest assured they already effectively controlled the desktop graphics landscape, however they define DirectX becomes the template for hardware vendors to follow, and Vulkan then has to follow their lead.
The pattern is especially obvious with big new features like raytracing, which was added to DirectX first and then some time later added to Vulkan with an API which almost exactly mirrors how DirectX abstracts it. There are even Vulkan extensions which exist specifically to make emulating DirectX semantics easier.