Re: [Algorithms] General purpose task parallel threading approach

[Gregory J. <gj...@da...>]

>> "Other than classroom examples, software is NOT written through
>> composition of 'general components'. And even in the small subset
>> of software writing where your statement may hold true, writing
>> those components was a very small amount of work of the total."
>>
>> No, every piece of software in a modern language is written through
>> composition of "general components", from the machine code op-codes,
>> up to the language constructs they come from, up to the libraries,
>> patterns and algorithms they're constructed with. 

> The fact that you have to rely on labelling assembly instructions
> and for-loops as "general components" to provide support for your
> initial statement shows how weak your statement was.

Agreed. "Reductio ad absurdum" is a technique most often used by parties who
cannot defend their position within the original bounds of the debate, and
therefore find they need to expand the playing field, so to speak. 

Perhaps the meta-issue is that there is no agreement in the past 205 posts
on what "general" actually means? According to dictionary.com, "general" can
be said to mean "not specific or definite". Using this definition then,
anything above the subatomic level cannot be said to be "general" because
the instant protons, neutrons and electrons assemble themselves into a
particular number and order of each, they achieve specificity and discard
generality.

Greg