ArrayFire VS angle

Loads of people have stated why easy GPU interfaces are difficult to create, but we solve many difficult things all the time.

Ultimately I think CPUs are just satisfactory for the vast vast majority of workloads. Servers rarely come with any GPUs to speak of. The ecosystem around GPUs is unattractive. CPUs have SIMD instructions that can help. There are so many reasons not to use GPUs. By the time anyone seriously considers using GPUs they're, in my imagination, typically seriously starved for performance, and looking to control as much of the execution details as possible. GPU programmers don't want an automagic solution.

So I think the demand for easy GPU interfaces is just very weak, and therefore no effort has taken off. The amount of work needed to make it as easy to use as CPUs is massive, and the only reason anyone would even attempt to take this on is to lock you in to expensive hardware (see CUDA).

For a practical suggestion, have you taken a look at https://arrayfire.com/ ? It can run on both CUDA and OpenCL, and it has C++, Rust and Python bindings.

What about Arrayfire. https://github.com/arrayfire/arrayfire

Low-overhead — not our goal, but Flashlight is on par with or outperforming most other ML/DL frameworks with its ArrayFire reference tensor implementation, especially on nonstandard setups where framework overhead matters

Looking for frameworks with Julia + OpenCL I found array fire. It seems quite good, bonus points for rust bindings. I will keep looking for more, Julia completely fell off my radar.

Your Problem may be the lazy evaluation, see this issue: https://github.com/arrayfire/arrayfire/issues/1709

It's using MoltenVK on Mac for Vulkan compatibility, and ANGLE for OpenGL compatibility on Windows and Linux. Makes you wonder what it's actually doing itself.

Can't they use https://github.com/google/angle?

BTW. For the last 15 years, all web browsers on Windows do WebGL on top of DirectX (using the Angle library https://github.com/google/angle).

You can still use OpenGL. Just not the vendor provided drivers. They are indeed horrible. There are libraries like:

* ANGLE ( https://github.com/google/angle ) - An OpenGL ES implementation with Direct3D 9, Direct3D 11, Desktop GL, GL ES, Vulkan and Metal backends. This is what we used to use for shipping our Qt 3D application, that used a bunch of OpenGL Shaders. We used to get bug reports about various shaders not working properly on various hardware. After switching to this, all those bug reports vanished.

* Zinc ( https://www.supergoodcode.com/do-not/ ) - A more recent, OpenGL implementation on top of Vulkan. I haven't used this one yet. But they are making a lot of progress and it is almost as performant as vendor provided OpenGL Drivers these days. So if I ever have to ship a desktop app, needing opengl, I'd strongly consider using this.

Another option if perf isn't a big concern is to try using Google's angle OpenGL ES 3.0 implementation, there's backends for it to be supported on Vulkan, Direct3D 11, and (work in progress) Metal. Disclosure, haven't tried it myself, just looking at their feature descriptions: https://github.com/google/angle

I don't believe Chrome uses OpenGL directly- any OpenGL usage it does have (e.g. for WebGL) is actually going through ANGLE which translates it all to D3D on Windows.

RTFM, have you read their instruction