But what I'm wondering is how much will it help the programmer? Yes its great that there is a standard, and I'm sure end-users will benefit from some fast software, but what about non-experts trying to use OpenCL to write fast simulation applications (i.e. scientists in the area of scientific computing)? From the looks of the spec. it will just still be a lengthy, tedious drag, fraught with bugs and inaccuracy errors, for many programmers trying to apply the language to parallelise their programs. It is a positive step, but it is not the solution all our woes. Perhaps it will make a great intermediate language for more abstract languages to translate to? (http://dorchard.co.uk)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
But what I'm wondering is how much will it help the programmer? Yes its great that there is a standard, and I'm sure end-users will benefit from some fast software, but what about non-experts trying to use OpenCL to write fast simulation applications (i.e. scientists in the area of scientific computing)? From the looks of the spec. it will just still be a lengthy, tedious drag, fraught with bugs and inaccuracy errors, for many programmers trying to apply the language to parallelise their programs. It is a positive step, but it is not the solution all our woes. Perhaps it will make a great intermediate language for more abstract languages to translate to? (http://dorchard.co.uk)