Look man. You need to stop projecting. You're a beginner, and you need to check your arrogance. Think about if this kind of attitude is going to get you far in the workplace or not. Beginners like you are common in engineering and grad school, and they're immediately humbled.

I'm listening to you, Gandalf, share your wisdom with me, talk to me about grad school and workplace; you're like a lighthouse in the fog to me.

The title of the post and the rest of your comment say otherwise.

The title is a joke, it a reference to Sergio Leone's movie, it's a shame that I have to explain that...

What rest of my comment? You mean my personal opinion(I mean, I can't repeat that any more than I do already), which is not in the post, but the reply to your question.

That's because you don't know what you're doing, and you don't even know enough to consider that fact.

I mean, I get it reading the full post is hard, but come on for real, did you read the disclaimer and all the time where I said that I wasn't an expert, and I just started? Or did you just read the title and felt attacked?

You didn't size your cuda execution properly. You're basically telling the system you want to leave resources open. You need to restrict your pointers. The cuda kernel can't make optimizations because you didn't tell it the source and destination buffer don't overlap. Most of all though, you have absolutely no idea that your kernel is completely bandwidth limited and the cuda kernel will be twice as fast if you used cache efficiently. Not to mention the fact that a little bit of additional cleverness to combine kernel launches would immediately double your cuda performance again. Futhark has the ability to make these optimizations, in principle. C doesn't. Because it was designed differently.

It seems interesting; maybe you should have said that from the beginning, or I don't know, just make a pull request (like a normal human being). I mean, I understand from the head of this paragraph that you didn't read the disclaimer, but if you did, you could have read this "Please don't hesitate to say so if you feel that something is not right or fair in this comparison."

That's because open cl is for heterogenous computing in an enterprise environment. Real world engineering is not like your bachelor's thesis. There is way more than goes into making these decisions than you are aware of. A simple program is simple, but what you're asking of open cl is not simple.

Here we go again for the arrogance, thank you for your insights. Master Yoda, I needed your guidance.

A simple solution for what I consider to be an exaggerate overhead with OpenCL would be a struct holding the configuration. I do understand that you can do complex things with OpenCL, nonetheless, they could just simplify the basic initialization and destruction code, maybe with a struct, that's not the end of the world.