I've always taken 'Welcome to the Future' as the thing being presented is futuristic and exists now in the present. Not 'in the future we will welcome you to the future' - while that is a nice sentiment it's utterly useless. To point out the obvious - of course futuristic things exist in the future and of course I have to wait for the future to happen.
I think people might interpret something claiming to be the "Future of Parallel Computing" as something that is just waiting on adoption. Perhaps "Towards the Future of Parallel Computing"...
Do you think calling your project parallel is what people have an issue with or do you think it's that you're calling your project the future of parallel computation when it doesn't perform anywhere close to what already exists?
"Future" has some mild speed implications but it sounds like you're doing reasonably there, bug nonwithstanding.
It also has "Not yet" implications ...
I've always taken 'Welcome to the Future' as the thing being presented is futuristic and exists now in the present. Not 'in the future we will welcome you to the future' - while that is a nice sentiment it's utterly useless. To point out the obvious - of course futuristic things exist in the future and of course I have to wait for the future to happen.
But it literally says we believe it is the future of parallel computing! If it was faster than GCC today, we would've written present :')
I think people might interpret something claiming to be the "Future of Parallel Computing" as something that is just waiting on adoption. Perhaps "Towards the Future of Parallel Computing"...
Do you think calling your project parallel is what people have an issue with or do you think it's that you're calling your project the future of parallel computation when it doesn't perform anywhere close to what already exists?