Nvidia announces native GPU programming in Rust

Post by 10729287 » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 4:47 AM UTC

josephg wrote: post #167

xbmcuser wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you are not from the generation of texters. This how languages work we used to use * as a way to avoid getting censored it over time became a way to curse or give emphasis.

Sounds like a generational thing. I grew up texting. But in the 90s any profanity filters could just be turned off in settings.

Post by westonmyers » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 4:57 AM UTC

xbmcuser wrote: post #70

tombert wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I strongly dislike CUDA. Once you have allowed that proprietary cr*p Genuine question...why not just type "crap"? It's not even that much of a curse, but I've never really understood the point of self-censorship. If you don't want to curse then you could just use a non-curse word.

* is used to give emphasis and show that they are using the word as curse word rather just calling it bad

Post by jchw » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 5:01 AM UTC

saghm wrote: post #151

jchw wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're simplifying the exchange a little too much. I said: > Anthropic doesn't appear to use Claude for blog posts My claim is literally the lack of evidence, which, yes, can't prove anything. This claim can be contested easily by showing evidence that they in fact, do appear to be using Claude to write prose in blog posts. They said: > Anthropic _absolutely_ does Sounds pretty certain Anthropic is in fact, using Cla…

I don't really have any opinion on your tone; I just still don't agree with your framing. A lack of evidence would be neutral like "there's no evidence to indicate either possibility is more likely", but your phrasing conveyed that one possibility was more likely than the other. I pushed back against your follow-up because it seemed like you were arguing for a higher threshold of evidence than you provided.

Post by oblio » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 5:09 AM UTC

nicwilson wrote: post #73

jacobgorm wrote: post #12

I strongly dislike CUDA. Once you have allowed that proprietary cr*p into your C++ codebase, it is very hard to get rid, and you end up with code that is either tied to a single vendor or an #ifdef hell, probably both. The best way to program GPUs is face up to the reality that they are not the same machine as the CPU, write your kernels in separate files, and launch them manually, like in Metal, OpenCL, and D3D12, e…

Launching kernels manually is an error prone PITA which I believe is the principle reason for CUDA's popularity. Having the compiler give an error when you mess up is a huge benefit. But having the compiler allow you to express "I want to launch this kernel over a grid with these dimensions, with these arguments" as a single expression is where the vast majority of the value comes from. The having it all in a single…

Post by pjmlp » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 5:20 AM UTC

preg_match wrote: post #173

fsloth wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CPU on most machines is quite proprietary. I don’t understand this faux purity dogma. Practical computing is not and never has been an abstract pure concept. It’s about making machines built by corporations to do usefull things at scale. There is no ”non proprietary” computing unless you make your own stack.

Yes but there are business costs to using high-level proprietary tools and libraries. If you write your app using win32, you won’t be able to port is very easily. You’re also stuck with whatever bad or bizarre decisions Microsoft made. It’s even worse for CUDA. GPUs are expensive, and now you’re vendor locked. You’re between a rock and a hard place. Either spend millions in engineering time, or millions on price-gaug…