Cuda seems to be clearly winning over OpenCL in the real world so other vendors should just adopt it. AMD already has a CUDA compiler IIRC.
A similar mistake is about to happen, but luckily on the software side where losses can be cut quick and mistakes can be reversed easier -- though many will suffer when they have to reimplement their precious library from ground up because they did (or could) not take into account the fact that CUDA is as proprietary as it gets.
AMD has no CUDA compiler BTW. And CUDA is not a programming language FYI. ;)
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/48478/open-system
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initia...
Aside: I have no position on whether is CUDA's Fortran and C++ dialects constitute their own languages, nor did I refer to CUDA as a programming language.
Sadly, that's a very problematic, borderline BS definition.
"A system that allows third parties to make products that plug into or interoperate with it. For example, the PC is an open system."
Intel allows some third parties to interoperate with their system (ref Intel vs NVIDIA etc.) and they pick and choose to their liking, kill some and promote others exactly because they control the open-ness of their systems.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initia...
HIP is still not a CUDA compiler. http://gpuopen.com/compute-product/hip-convert-cuda-to-porta...
> nor did I refer to CUDA as a programming language.
You did refer to "CUDA compiler". My comment was admittedly a nitpick as well as a serious point too. CUDA can be seen as a C++ language + extensions -- something you can compile --, but it's also more than that (stuff that you can't compile), e.g.: API, programming tools, etc. all strongly adapted for NVIDIA hardware.