No and yes. Is it strictly the language’s responsibility to deal with the implementation? Not really. I agree in theory. In practice, Google is behind this sta

No and yes. Is it strictly the language’s responsibility to deal with the implementation? Not really. I agree in theory. In practice, Google is behind this statement. Nvidia is behind this statement. Two of the largest supercomputing facilities in the US are backing this. The document heavily implies that these are the goals for C++ based on their use cases. These are also organizations that have had a massive role getting the accelerator space to where it is today. Sure, MLIR is technically a project underneath the LLVM foundation, but isn’t it mostly Google employees who were working on it. Lattner has moved on from there and is now setting his sights on RISC-V it seems. As someone who likes modern C+ + and is interested in new, open hardware, I’m really happy RISC-V is being made a priority, along with bare metal compilation. But I’m also confused and here’s why. I agree entirely that CUDA support for modern C++ is moving along nicely, especially since CUDA 11 supports C++17. However, a good chunk of these authors are Nvidia employees and now they’re implying their “use case” for C++ isn’t associated with accelerators?