Not that this matters because your argument is flawed.
The claim that CUDA is not worth using because it lacks portability, only holds, if there is hardware worth using that's not supported by CUDA.
The only GPUs worth buying for compute are from nvidia and support CUDA, so your claim isn't true.
The only thing you achieve today by not using CUDA is paying a huge price in development quality for portability that you can't use.
The startup cemetery is filled with companies that made this trade-off and picked OpenCL just in case they wanted to use non-nvidia hardware. They were all killed by the velocity of their competitors that were using CUDA to deliver better products that payed the bills.
The only people for which it might make sense to avoid CUDA are "non-professionals" (hobbyist, etc.). If you only want to use OpenCL to "learn OpenCL", then OpenCL is the right choice. But if you want to make money, then CUDA was the right choice 15 years ago and still is the right choice today.
If that makes you angry, direct your anger properly. It isn't NVIDIA's fault that CUDA is really good. It is however, AMD's, Intel's, Apple's, Qualcomm, ARM's... fault that everything else _sucks hard_. Being angry at nvidia for delivering good products is just stupid. Its the other companies fault that they can't seem to be able to get their sh* together when it comes to GPU computing.