NVIDIA Open Sources Cg

[KimB]

Agreed. As I said, the Cg language should either cease to exist, or nVidia should reliquish control over it. I don't see the Cg language surviving in this industry unless nVidia gives up control.

I simply don't see any "language" that is wholly owned by one IHV gaining acceptance in the market.

Well, according to that press release, nVidia open-sourced the rest of the language (i.e. the compiler). I don't know what, if any, limitations there are on the direction the language goes, however.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Chalnoth,

The "language" is not the compiler. nVidia did not "open source" or reliquish any control over the language itself.

Doomtrooper,

OK...I wasn't sure what you were saying.

 

[MfA]

They dont own language, they own a trademark.

 

[Mephisto]

Okay, OpenGL is working fairly good, but the progress has been less than stellar with different vendors [at one point] writing their own GL-extentions.

Interresting, the two companies responsible for this situation are NVIDIA and Microsoft. Both of them push their HLSL now while holding OGL back.

 

[Mephisto]

according to that press release, nVidia open-sourced the rest of the language (i.e. the compiler). I don't know what, if any, limitations there are on the direction the language goes, however.

NVIDIAs Cg is still proprietary.

Open sourcing a parser and compiler (as announced from the beginning) doesn't change this. It's a pity Matt and others don't get the point.

The Cg language is NVIDIA controlled, they define the profiles, the syntax and the future direction of the capabilities of this language. We simply do not need this. There is the DX9 HLSL (as NVIDIA claims that it is the same, so we don't need Cg), and there is the OGL HLSL. I doubt they can adobt the DX9 HLSL because of Microsoft, for the same reason, it will probably be difficult to adopt Cg.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

They dont own language, they own a trademark.

They own the specification and hence control over evolution of the specification for the language.

I haven't seen nVidia's response to 3D labs' charge:

Contrary to their implied positioning, Nvidia's is not planning to offer Cg to the OpenGL Architecture Review Board for consideration as a standard of any type. Rather, they have stated that they fully intend to control the specification and implementation. Other graphics hardware vendors would be offered the ability to implement this Nvidia-specified language, under Nvidia licensing terms, for their own hardware.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,183940,00.asp

 

[Matt Burris]

Open sourcing a parser and compiler (as announced from the beginning) doesn't change this. It's a pity Matt and others don't get the point.

The Cg language is NVIDIA controlled, they define the profiles, the syntax and the future direction of the capabilities of this language. We simply do not need this. There is the DX9 HLSL (as NVIDIA claims that it is the same, so we don't need Cg), and there is the OGL HLSL. I doubt they can adobt the DX9 HLSL because of Microsoft, for the same reason, it will probably be difficult to adopt Cg.

Spare your pity mister, I've already acknowledged many times that I'm aware that NVIDIA is open sourcing the compiler, but not the language itself. I made this post to let everyone know that NVIDIA has made it official, even though we all knew this was what NVIDIA was planning to do for over a month.

 

[Mephisto]

Spare your pity mister, I've already acknowledged many times that I'm aware that NVIDIA is open sourcing the compiler, but not the language itself.

... but you called the thread "NVIDIA open sources Cg", which is wrong, so it is easy to get the impression I had.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Matt,

...and you also said in your first post "I suppose a lot of people are going to be eating their words today. "

That certainly gives one the impression that you believed this to be some development "unexpected" by some people. Why would anyone eat their words? (Unless they believed nVidia was lying when they said they would opensource those parts of Cg?)

 

[MfA]

blah

 

[MfA]

They dont own language, they own a trademark.

They own the specification and hence control over evolution of the specification for the language.

They own the copyrights on the specifications, which are just about useless. They control what you can call Cg, but if you derive your own compiler and profile and call it something else I doubt there is a damn thing they can do about it.

 

[Mephisto]

They own the copyrights on the specifications, which are just about useless. They control what you can call Cg, but if you derive your own compiler and profile and call it something else I doubt there is a damn thing they can do about it.

So, basicly you suggest releasing another HLSL with its own name, its own compilers and its own specification =)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If you try to derive your own variant of Cg with your own profile their secret army of ninja leprechauns will come and get you?

No, the non-secret army called software developers will come and get you, because then you'll have every IHV with "their flavor" of "Cg"....all kind of the same but with differences.

The point is, for IHVs NOT to derive "their own" Cg or HLSL at all. It's for them to support "some industry standard."

One (or two) "real time" HLSLs, neither of which is controlled by any single IHV should be more than enough. To suggest that each IHV derive their own Cg variant is exactly what this industry does not need.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So, basicly you suggest releasing another HLSL with its own name, its own compilers and its own specification =)

Lol...it took me 3 paragraphs to say that.

 

[MfA]

No, Im suggesting that doing so is in no way different from making your own compiler with your own profile and so saying you cannot make your own profile is BS.

 

[Matt Burris]

Matt,

...and you also said in your first post "I suppose a lot of people are going to be eating their words today. "

That certainly gives one the impression that you believed this to be some development "unexpected" by some people. Why would anyone eat their words? (Unless they believed nVidia was lying when they said they would opensource those parts of Cg?)

I recall getting emails, and seeing comments all around the web saying something to the effect that the day NVIDIA open sources something is the day Microsoft does so too. Do note the smiley with the tongue sticking out at the end of that sentence, which is a playful gesture, as in not to be taken seriously. If I knew I was going to be strung up by the balls over that remark, I would've left it out.

... but you called the thread "NVIDIA open sources Cg", which is wrong, so it is easy to get the impression I had.

Sorry to have mislead you, you're right, I should've elaborated on the title. Last time I checked though, the compiler is part of Cg.

 

[MfA]

How the hell would you open source a language BTW? You could free the trademark and let anyone call Cg what they want ... or you could freeze the specification and give everyone equal control, none. Neither seems very attractive.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

How the hell would you open source a language BTW?

How the hell do you create a specification for a language?

The only thing that's attractive, is to have as FEW languages as possible, and to not have any of those languages controlled by any single IHV. The Cg language is not attractive by that standard.

 

[MfA]

But the ARB is too slow, and m$ doesnt allow extensions ... so whats a company which has hardware ahead of what DX exposes to do?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

But the ARB is too slow...

Agreed

and m$ doesnt allow extensions ...

For good reason, IMO....

so whats a company which has hardware ahead of what DX exposes to do?

Exactly what nVidia is doing. As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with nVidia doing this, any more than them creating proprietary GL extensions to support their hardware.

What I disagree with, is some people's notions that the Cg language is something more than exactly that: nVidia's way to expose their hardware. We can debate forever how "possible" it is for other IHV's to support the language, but before that's even considered....WHY would other IHVs do it.