• More of my philosophy about Python and operating systems and network ad

    From World-News2100@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 11 20:41:16 2021
    Hello,


    More of my philosophy about Python and operating systems and network administration..

    I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

    You have just seen me talking about C++ and Rust and Python etc., read
    my thoughts below about it, but now i have to make you understand that
    even if Python has the below disadvantage in multiprocessing that i have
    just talked about, Python is still very important in making
    multiprocessing operating system and network administration, since the multiprocessing task of the administration can be expensive and it will
    make the multiprocessing of Python scale much more, so this is why i
    will soon port some of my scalable algorithms inventions to Python that
    will make Python scale much more and i will write a tutorial about it
    using some real world operating system network administration using multiprocessing python tasks. So i think that Python is still a powerful
    tool.

    More of my philosophy about Python and Ruby and Go languages and more..

    I think i am smart since i am an inventor of many powerful scalable
    algorithms, so i am specialized in parallel programming and
    synchronization algorithms, and i say that Python and Ruby and Go
    languages have a big problem, and it is that Python can use python
    interpreters in each process or in each thread so that to avoid to lock
    in a single interpreter, but this brings a big problem and it is that
    you have to transfer the data of the inside of a python object between
    threads or processes using a queue or shared memory etc. and it doesn't
    look like C++ or Delphi way where you can move a pointer or reference to
    an object not the data inside an object between threads so that to scale
    and be fast, so this way of moving data of inside an object of Python
    and Ruby is not scalable and is too slow and it looks like MPI messaging
    way, Go language has not this big problem but Go has the same problem as
    Rust since it doesn't provide us with OOP inheritance, read about it in
    my following thoughts:

    More of my philosophy about the too much purism philosophy of Rust and
    more..

    I think i am smart, and i think that Rust compiler and language is too
    much "purist", it looks like the too much purism of Haskell functional programming language, since i say that Rust doesn't provide us with OOP inheritance, but it is too much restrictive, and it is the deficiency of
    Rust, since inheritance has advantages and disadvantages, so we have to
    balance well and provide also with inheritance so that to be efficient,
    so i think that C++ and C# are better than Rust in this regard, and here
    is the advantages and disadvantages of OOP inheritance:

    https://www.ianswer4u.com/2017/09/oops-inheritance-advantages.html

    More of my philosophy about NP-hard problems and about Rust and C++..

    I think i am smart and i have just quickly looked at Rust compiler and i
    think that since the Rust compiler has included race detection so
    it is NP-hard, so that means that Rust compiler will never know in race detection which of races are real race conditions(Read here in the
    following paper so that to understand it: https://www.sjsu.edu/people/robert.chun/courses/cs159/s3/Y.pdf), and,
    this is the reason why it is difficult to use a tool to find race
    conditions accurately, so then i think that C++ is still useful by using
    it with Threadsanatizer and Address sanatizer even if C++ is getting
    complex as i just said the following:

    Also C++ has the following problem:

    - C++ is a highly complex language. Learning and fully understanding C++
    requires a huge learning effort. C++ code does not always do what one
    would ‘intuitively’ expect from looking at the source code. At the
    same time, the high complexity of C++ increases the probability of
    compiler errors. C++ compiler writers are only humans, after all.

    More of my philosophy about C++ and Rust and Microsoft and
    safety-critical systems..

    I invite you to read the following from Microsoft about Rust programming language:

    Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe Systems Programming

    https://thenewstack.io/microsoft-rust-is-the-industrys-best-chance-at-safe-systems-programming/

    I think that the above article is not correct, since i think that
    Rust is suited for safety-critical systems, so i think Rust is better
    than C++ in the safety-critical systems, but i think that C++ will
    still be useful with the Address sanitizer and ThreadSanatizer,
    and read my below thoughts since i have just added something in them:

    More of my philosophy about memory safety and inheritance in programming languages..

    "Address sanitization is not a security feature, nor does it provide memory-safety: it's a debugging tool. Programmers already have tools to
    detect that the code they've written has memory problems, such as use-after-free or memory leaks. Valgrind is probably the best-known
    example. This gcc feature provides (some of) the same functionality: the
    only new thing is that it's integrated with the compiler, so it's easier
    to use.

    You wouldn't have this feature turned on in production: it's for
    debugging only. You compile your tests with this flag, and automatically
    they detect memory errors that are triggered by the test. If your tests
    aren't sufficient to trigger the problem, then you still have the
    problem, and it'll still cause the same security flaws in production.

    Rust's ownership model prevents these defects by making programs that
    contain such defects invalid: the compiler will not compile them. You
    don't have to worry about your tests not triggering the problem, because
    if the code compiles, there cannot be a problem.

    The two features are for different sets of problems. One feature of
    address sanitization is to detect memory leaks (allocating memory and neglecting to free it later). Rust makes it harder to write memory leaks
    than in C or C++, but it's still possible (if you have circular
    references). Rust's ownership model prevents data races in sequential
    and multi-threaded situations (see below). Address sanitization doesn't
    aim to detect either of those cases. But you can use ThreadSanatizer"

    And using just plain C#, it has better memory protection, since the GC
    and runtime make it impossible to leak, double-free, or access
    out-of-bounds. C# has unsafe blocks just like Rust does. Safe Rust is
    just as safe from memory safety problems as safe C#.

    I think that a programming language has to provide "inheritance",
    and the new Rust programming language doesn't provide it and i think
    that it is a deficiency in Rust, here is why:

    As a software developer you have to become more efficient and
    productive. So you need to make sure the code you write is easily
    reusable and maintainable. And, among other things, this is what
    inheritance gives you - the ability to reuse without reinventing the
    wheel, as well as the ability to easily maintain your base object
    without having to perform maintenance on all similar objects.


    Thank you,
    Amine Moulay Ramdane.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)