The terminology in that article is avowedly nonstandard; I found it off-putting. "Parallelism/Concurrency is good when... Parallelism/Concurrency is bad when...

The terminology in that article is avowedly nonstandard; I found it off-putting. "Parallelism/Concurrency is good when... Parallelism/Concurrency is bad when...". The author cites feedback received in an interview to this effect, and then ignores it. I respectfully urge the author to reconsider this approach. Technical words have precise meanings, you can't go Blubbing[0] up at more technically precise language than you care to use and expect to communicate effectively. For comparison, here's Concurrency and Parallelism explained by two Robs (with a bonus cartoon Gophers as well). Rob Pike: Concurrency is not Parallelism http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism Robert Harper: Parallelism is not Concurrency https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/parallelism-is-not-concurrency/ https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/parallelism... Open each link in a new window and tile them, close them both when you finish reading/watching: that's concurrency. Manage to read the article while watching the video at the same time: that's parallelism. :) [0] I mean to dismiss something in the same manner as described in the Blub Paradox.