On 31 May 2017 at 05:32, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 07:23:42PM +0000, Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 18:06:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > I fear the conversation will go like this, like it has for me:
> >
> > N: DCompute
> > W: What's DCompute?
> > N: Enables GPU programming with D
> > W: Cool!
> >
> > instead of:
> >
> > N: D-GPU
> > W: Cool! I can use D to program GPUs!
>
> This was literally what happened to me when I saw the headline.

I confess the first conversation was also my reaction when I saw the
name "DCompute". I thought, "oh, this is some kind of scientific
computation library, right? That comes with a set of standard numerical
algorithms?". Programming GPUs did not occur to me at all.

I'm becoming suspicious that people who don't interact with this technology just don't know the terminology deployed in the field.

I think this is natural, and part of learning anything new.

But if it's not possible to select terminology that is intuitive to both parties, *surely* the users/consumers of some technology should be first priority in terms of not confusing them with industry-non-standard terminology?

Users who are unfamiliar have already demonstrated that they likely have no specific interest in a field (or they'd be aware of the conventional terminology at least), and why would you cater to that crowd as the expense of the actual users?