RE: “CIL *is* a representation of whatever you wrote but the translation is one way and the higher level information is lost”

I’m not entirely convinced that the metadata relating to the high level thinking/interpretation is even required to solve this kind of problem? (i.e. mapping serial/sequential code to an equivalent and more parallelized version). In some packages such as Simulink
(Mathworks) and BlockBuilder for Simulink (Maplesoft) the model of the algorithm/application is analysed and algebraically simplified into a form that is far more efficient, but equivalent. As, at the low level, the entire application can ultimately be described
as a system of equations, why would this abstract principle even require metadata to reform the solution? Only the basic procedural/functional subsets/partitions need be maintained.

In your example of a string of characters, even this can be considered a single value as is commonly used in databases and cryptography (see gmp mp bignum library applications for references). So on the base, all of this can simply be considered one large algebraic
problem? Or do you disagree?

" If all .net languages eventually compile down to CIL, then why not just focus on analysing the CIL code for parallel optimisations and then literally restructure the code on that common level? (rather than finding a common model for all high level paradigms)
"

## Comments

## SpecExplorer: Model-Based Testing made practicable

Might I suggest you guys check out the GUI used in the StateFlow extension to Simulink, as their diagrams are a tad clearer to follow.

## Expert to Expert - Joe Duffy: Perspectives on Concurrent Programming and Parallelism

RE: “CIL *is* a representation of whatever you wrote but the translation is one way and the higher level information is lost”I’m not entirely convinced that the metadata relating to the high level thinking/interpretation is even required to solve this kind of problem? (i.e. mapping serial/sequential code to an equivalent and more parallelized version). In some packages such as Simulink (Mathworks) and BlockBuilder for Simulink (Maplesoft) the model of the algorithm/application is analysed and algebraically simplified into a form that is far more efficient, but equivalent. As, at the low level, the entire application can ultimately be described as a system of equations, why would this abstract principle even require metadata to reform the solution? Only the basic procedural/functional subsets/partitions need be maintained.

In your example of a string of characters, even this can be considered a single value as is commonly used in databases and cryptography (see gmp mp bignum library applications for references). So on the base, all of this can simply be considered one large algebraic problem? Or do you disagree?

## Expert to Expert - Joe Duffy: Perspectives on Concurrent Programming and Parallelism

" If all .net languages eventually compile down to CIL, then why not just focus on analysing the CIL code for parallel optimisations and then literally restructure the code on that common level? (rather than finding a common model for all high level paradigms) "