We have to be smart and get on more precision by using logic and measure..

[Sky89]

Hello...

We have to be smart and get on more precision by using logic and measure..

You have seen me writing my previous post, but with more precision i
have to define more what i mean by "general" purpose, so like in
philosophy, if we are like rationalism, we will neglect empiricism,
this is the main point also, so we have to know how to be rationalism
and also empiricism, and this is inherent to my definition of what
is general purpose, for example when i say Lockfree algorithms are not
general purpose , first, i mean that the understanding of the mechanism
constrain the definition of general purpose by meaning
that general purpose is general purpose of what is "Lockfree",
so we have not to think the "set" as being not constrained by
the definition of Lockfree, so when i say that Lockfree algorithms
are not general purpose , i mean since there is bigger disadvantages of
Lockfree algorithms, so we can not call them general purpose, and this
apply to compilers or interpreters, if we notice that they come with
bigger noticable disadvantages , so we can start to call them as not
being general purpose, this is my meaning and definition of general
purpose, so this is why you are noticing that we are today learning
many programming languages, because we are understanding the
disadvantages of this or that programming languages, and this
makes us understand that this bigger "complexity" of learning many
programming languages and tools etc. is like returning back to
the complexity of programming assembler, so now you are capable of
understanding my previous post, here it is:

About computer programming..

Since we are not capable of designing a compiler or interpreter or the
like that are more suitable for everything in programming, i mean that
are general purpose, and since for example Lockfree algorithms are not
general because they have there advantages and disadvantages etc. so
computer programming today is like returning back more to assembler, i
mean it is like returning back to much more "complexity", for example
you have to be "aware" of the "inside" of Lockfree algorithms to be able
to say that Lockfree algorithms are faster than Lock based algorithms
when there is more and more context switches between threads that uses
the Lockfree algorithms, and by understanding them you have to be
capable of applying them to reality more efficiently because they are
not like general purpose, So now you are understanding my main point,
this is why i wrote before that:

Here is the main very important point in computer programming:

I think the main point is that you have not to think to work with just
Java or with just Lockfree algorithms and not Lock based algorithms, now
you are able to see my point of view that Java or Lockfree algorithms
are not "general" purpose, so you have to start to enlarge your
conception of our world and be more diversified in computer programming
, this is what we call responsability today.


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

First