Re: [Algorithms] General purpose task parallel threading approach

[Sebastian S. <seb...@gm...>]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Gregory Junker <gj...@da...> wrote:

>  Sebastian
>
>
>
> First, what attitude?
>

You can't be serious.


>
> Second, the components you write are **not** as general as possible – that
> would create a useless system, as I (and others) have already pointed out.
> You write components that are coded to do something specific, and because
> they are restricted to doing something specific, when you need something
> that does that specific something in the future, you can reuse that
> component. That is what “reuse” means.
>
>
>
> You should know this, yet you continue to harp on this “general” theme
> anytime anyone tries to explain to you what should be obvious about your use
> of this term. One can only assume, from your responses and your behavior in
> this topic, that you are simply being argumentative at this point.
>

Who's being argumentative now? You're arguing that my point about a certain
system lacking generality/flexibility is pointless because if you take
generality to the absurd extreme you wouldn't get a useful system. When have
I ever said you should do that?

People write general systems all the time, criticizing a specific technique
for being restrictive is perfectly legitimate.

Again, I'm *using* this very system right now, clearly I'm perfectly happy
to make compromises on generality. If you want to argue, please do it with
me, rather than some straw man you've conjured up out of thin air.


-- 
Sebastian Sylvan
+44(0)7857-300802
UIN: 44640862