> C++AMP was more a POC than anything else.
Everything starts somewhere. I'd say C++Amp was better than OpenCL 2.0 ever got (since OpenCL2.0 is basically nonexistant), and if you were fine being on Windows-only, it was better than OpenCL1.2.
Developer tooling was loads better on C++Amp than OpenCL ever got honestly, mostly because C++Amp leveraged DirectCompute.
> Anything else, Microsoft has always been more interested in doing compute via DirectX, aka DirectCompute.
Well yeah, but DirectCompute is in its own little language / world (much like OpenCL). Its HLSL, not C++ directly.
What makes CUDA easier to use was that C++ integration. So C++Amp, which took true C++ Lambda functions and automagically compiled them into DirectCompute really made it easier to perform all these computations.
I get that Microsoft is still investing into DirectCompute today, but Microsoft is missing out on some fundamental features of CUDA (ie: one source C++).
-----------
Well, C++AMP has been dead for a decade now, so not much use reminiscing now. But it could have been great IMO with more investment and confidence. Bring C++Amp to DirectX12 so that 64-bit was usable, then start building Thrust-like (CPU-side helper libraries that utilize GPUs) or CUB-like libraries (GPU-side helper libraries).
> I will leave the WinRT/UWP rant for another day.
Don't worry, I think everyone in the industry is universally frustrated at this!
I'm just trying to remind people where AMD was during this period.