3 ms·
> Again, your argument is ad hominem ("you don't understand") It's not ad hominem - it was my argument in literally my first response without a single word of
by almostgotcaught 2y ago
> Again, your argument is ad hominem ("you don't understand")
It's not ad hominem - it was my argument in literally my first response without a single word of shade. you then go and say "you have no argument" and I respond with "well if you can't understand the argument then sure I have no argument". pretty simple. I read this on reddit at some point: you're not the victim here, you're just starting a fight and then losing that fight.
> If there is a problem with that strategy, then it's up to you to demonstrate it because the prima facie evidence is that it works
you think that yolking yourself to your direct competitor's runtime API is a sound product strategy? really? i'm sure you'll come back with "intel x86_64 blah blah blah". the fact is it's not a sound strategy and maybe it would be wise for AMD to build out a real HIP backend (and maybe they already are).
- Certhas 2y agoNowhere did you say that you think trying to build an interface that is as close as possible to cuda is the problem. You still haven't said why it's a problem. You only said "look at the implementation" and said that if that's not obviously problematic to me, I just don't understand. If you had explained why you find it problematic we might have had a conversation on the viability of that strategy and the need for other complementary strategies. Seriously, the only reason I am still here is because I hope you can understand why your replies were really not appropriate for facilitating interesting conversation.