3 ms·
> What I reject is the notion that “GPU-backed” is limited to more than what the words mean literally. This is exactly what I'm arguing against. We name stuff
by starburst 4y ago
> What I reject is the notion that “GPU-backed” is limited to more than what the words mean literally.
This is exactly what I'm arguing against. We name stuff to represent something. The article very explicitly mention "GPU-Backed UI" as one of the alternative to app that are made with web tech (HTML / CSS). Because it is talking about a very specific way to build UI. And the name they choose is "GPU-Backed UI", which is what anyone would use too.
But you are arguing that a Web Page / Browser / HTML / etc is "GPU Backed UI" and should be group together. But then we have the issue of how we name that type of UI that they are talking in the article which is very obviously something different than what a UI built using a browser would be.
- dahart 4y agoWhy do you say it’s a “name”; why are you assuming & asserting the words “GPU backed” are a term of art? Do you have any references to support this assertion? Why do you disagree that UI implemented with a GPU can be called “GPU backed”; aren’t overloaded meanings common enough to consider them possible and reasonable? What, exactly, is your definition of “GPU backed” then? Does it make room for the fact that OpenGL can run on a CPU? I would also argue that Scaleform on the Wii is GPU backed UI, for example. This thread is now hung on a gate-keeping technicality, and has lost the actual point, which is that, regardless of what you want to call it, html & css rendering have been getting faster due to the increasing use of GPUs, which is narrowing the gap between bespoke UIs and interfaces made with more standard toolkits.