Hello..

More of my philosophy about the new Rust language and about CSP(Communicating sequential processes) and more..

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

I think i am smart, and i will say that the new programming language that we call Rust is not so efficient, since the problem
is that it is using Rust compiler that comes with a race detector that is NP-hard or NP-complete, so it is not efficient at all in term of time complexity and it also 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
also difficult to use a tool to find race conditions accurately, C++
has the same problem as Rust, so the best way is to use Channels and processes like in superpascal or Channels and "lightweight" tasks like goroutines in Go so that to avoid race conditions and such parallel programming bugs like in the following example of Go that shows how to avoid race conditions:

https://fodor.org/blog/go-avoiding-race-conditions/

And i think that Go and Rust have another disadvantage and here it is:

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 and Go don'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

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.

And about the Rust

More of my philosophy about Superpascal and about CSP(Communicating sequential processes) and more..

I think i am smart, and i am also programming in Object Pascal
of Delphi and Freepascal, and i think i am also a smart "Wirthian" programmer of the Wirthian familly of ALGOL-like languages, since i have programmed in Pascal and i have also programmed in Superpascal(You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperPascal), and
i have programmed in Object Pascal of Delphi and Freepascal, and i know more about Superpascal, that was an interesting enhancement of the pascal language, that brought an enhancement in a form of a "Forall" statement that is like a Parallel For loop, and that brought an
enhancement in a form of "Channels" that look like Go channels and that permit to code parallel programs, so the Superpascal channels allowed us to program like in CSP(Communicating sequential processes) that is a formal language for describing patterns of interaction in concurrent systems. And CSP(Communicating sequential processes) is a member of the family of mathematical theories of concurrency known as process algebras, or process calculi, based on message passing via channels, so Superpascal Channels allowed us to avoid parallel bugs such as race conditions, but i think that those channels can also be used in a more simple way like in the following article, so that they permit to avoid race conditions and that's also i think a much better enhancement, so read the following article so that to know about the more simple way of using Go channels or Superpascal channels so that to avoid race conditions:

https://fodor.org/blog/go-avoiding-race-conditions/

And so that you get an idea about Superpascal, you can look
at its source code in Freepascal here in Gitub:

https://github.com/octonion/superpascal

So as you notice that Superpascal programming language, that was invented in year 1993, has preceded Go programming language by providing Channels etc.. that permit to do parallel programming by avoiding race conditions and such parallel programming bugs.

But you have to know that i am smart and i have also enhanced
Object Pascal of Freepascal and Delphi by inventing the following
Threadpool that scales well and that supports parallel for loop,
you can read about it carefully here in my websites:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well

And i have also enhanced Object Pascal of Freepascal and Delphi by
inventing a Scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references, you can take a look carefully about it here in my websites:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references

So as you notice that i am also an inventor of many scalable algorithms
and algorithms..

More of my philosophy about stack memory allocations and about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing..

I think i am smart, and as you are noticing in my below thoughts that
i am abstracting smartly so that to make you understand preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing , other than that i will also give you
an interesting Stack memory allocation algorithm in Delphi and Freepascal so that to use it smartly with my below sophisticated Stackful coroutines Library, so i will extend my sophisticated Stackful coroutines Library so that to support it smartly, and here it is:

--

var pool: array [1..limit] of integer;
memory: array [min..max] of integer;
top: integer;

procedure initialize;

var index: integer;

begin
for index := 1 to limit do
pool[index] := empty;
top := min − 1
end;

procedure allocate( index, length: integer; var address: integer);

begin

address := pool[index];
if address <> empty then
pool[index] := memory[address]
else
begin
address := top + 1;
top := top + length;
if not (top <= max)
then raise Exception.Create('Stack overflow..')

end
end;

procedure release( index, address: integer);
begin
memory[address] := pool[index];
pool[index] := address
end;

--

More of my philosophy about about the paper and about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing and more..

I have just forgotten to post about who has written the following
paper about cooperative and preemptive tasking:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman90_HeavyweightTasking.pdf

Here is the Professor Phil Koopman of Carnegie Mellon University from Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering who has written
this paper:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/personal.html

And note that i am calling, in my thoughts below, cooperative and preemptive tasking: "preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing"

More of my philosophy about Intel 8051 controller and about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing and more..

I have just quickly read the following interesting paper and it says
that judicious use of cooperative tasking techniques can also often meet an embedded system's multitasking requirements, while giving better
performance and a simpler software environment than a preemptive multitasker, so read it carefully here:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman90_HeavyweightTasking.pdf

And notice that it also says in the above paper that so that to meet
the requirements with cooperative multitasking you have to move the time-critical code to interrupt-service routines. And let us look
for example at the Intel 8051 controller here:

https://www.electronicwings.com/8051/introduction-to-8051-controller

So as you notice that it has many hardware interrupts that you can
use so that to make the cooperative tasking efficient, and i think it also comes with two clock timers interrupts that you can use to implement preemptive multitasking if you want, and you have also to know about interrupt latency when programming embedded systems with hardware controllers, and you have to know that the hardware interrupts have to get serviced fast enough and often enough, so you shouldn't disable
interrupts for too long a period of time, and just to give you an idea
, look for example at the nonbuffered communication UART (Universal
Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter) operating at 38,400 bits per second will interrupt every 208 microseconds. This is 1/38,400*8 because they
will interrupt for every byte (8 bits), and a processor or controller running at 25MHz executes most of its instructions in
2 or 3 system-clock periods. That would be an average of 120 nanoseconds
(1/25,000,000*3). In theory, this means you could execute as
many as 1,730 instructions in the interrupt interval. So that was only
in theory, now you have to do the reality check. You must take into
consideration that there are more interrupts than just that communication channel. The timer interrupt will be firing off every so often. And the communication interrupt itself will have interrupts
disabled for good period of time, and not only that, but there is also the tasks switch that can be expensive, so you have to think about
it efficiently.