• jabjoe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    As a general rule, don’t use a corporation’s language. Languages, and their reference implementation, should be truly independent.

    Edit: To be clear, programming language.

      • jabjoe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Corporation? I’m not anti business, far from it. But I have an interest in economics as well as technology. We need effective markets. CUDA is an example of a market problem caused by a corporation’s own language. It has screwed up competition.

        • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean if anything, look at Velcro and how generalising a term makes it untrademarkeable. Overusing words can and will screw companies.

          • kureta@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            3 months ago

            He means programming language. Don’t use programming languages that are controlled by a single company. Not “don’t say CUDA when you mean any general purpose GPU programming language”.

          • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The funny thing with that, I haven’t seen a term taken like that from a tech company though.

            Xerox is the only one I can think of that came close, Googling at this point…