[e-lang] a question concerning hayek and erights.org

[jan ziak]

hi.

i read the text at
http://www.erights.org/elib/concurrency/event-loop.html#safety
and want to know what do you mean by associating hayek and concurrency 
control. i cite:

"Friedrich Hayek's writings on economics enable us to see the commonality 
between the problems of concurrency control, pre-object programming, and 
command economies. All three suffer from plan interference.
...
Hayek's explanation of the primary virtue of property rights for organizing 
large scale economic activity parallels the rationale for encapsulation in 
object-oriented systems: to provide a domain (an object's encapsulation 
boundary) in which an agent (the object) can execute plans (the object's 
methods) that use resources (an object's private state), where the proper 
functioning of these plans depends on these resources not being used 
simultaneously by conflicting plans. By dividing up the resources of society 
(the state of a computational system) into separately owned chunks (private 
object states), we enable a massive number of plans to make use of a massive 
number of resources without needing to resolve a massive number of 
conflicting assumptions."

i do not understand why should hayek's explanation provide some rationale of 
that kind. i thought that the main reason of dividing society into small 
units is that such a society is able to learn, to explore, in an effective 
way.

when it comes to "massive number of resources", communistic china of the not 
so far past is also good in this also (because of gigantism for example). 
communistic china had not have interfering plans, because the plans created 
by the leaders were being performed by people of china republic.

so i do not understand: what is the argument of using hayek here?


i think one should respect the contracts he signed, agreed with. in terms of 
objects, when one object decides that breaking encapsulation is good 
(whatever the reason for this can be) and wants to share some of his private 
variables - in this case the object under consideration has made a promise 
and must keep it - i think that holding one's (object's) word is far more 
significant then to strictly enforce one model of "property mode".

can you write what do you think about this? thanks.

jz.