Re: [Algorithms] General purpose task parallel threading approach

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

> I think you guys are getting tied up in an argument about semantics.

I've been waiting for someone to trot that one out...

The problem is, words have meanings. And if someone is going to offer a
system as "general" and applicable as a feasible solution to a wide range of
problems, then they actually *do* need to define what they mean by
"general". 

I've stated (and provided reasons why), as have many others, that there is
no such thing as a truly "general" system -- that the moment you put code to
an idea, you have instituted restrictions and rules on how your code is
intended to be used. Use outside those defined parameters is unsupported and
undefined. This is why we have documentation -- to describe the operational
parameters of whatever it is we have implemented.

Alexander has created a system that worked for his needs. In order to do so,
he (like anyone else creating a system) had to make assumptions about the
conditions under which that system was designed to operate. Now he would
like to make his system accessible to a wider audience. The problem with
Alexander's approach in this thread, however, is that he is asking what
specific features people would find useful in asynclib. This approach is a
problem because it likely will introduce additional complexity (depending on
the feature), and more specific restrictions on when and how a particular
feature is to be used, and that actually leads to a less general solution. 

So perhaps a better question is not about a "general purpose" system, but
instead one about a system that supports the particular needs of game
development? The list of criteria you provided certainly is more in line
with the interests of game development (not that I would agree that
"reusability" has anything to do with "generality"), and that list is
arguably the baseline from which most on this side of the argument have been
using. 
 
Greg