4 ms·

You mistake concurrency with parallelism. If each of your "synchronous" call to a method is an asynchronous message, suddenly, all your program is embarasingly

• ww520 10y ago
  "Embarrassingly concurrent" is not embarrassingly parallel. Parallelism is not merely making things concurrent nor making synchronous calls into concurrent async calls.
  • di4na 10y ago
    once you are concurrent, what stop you from being distributed to multiple cores ?
    • ww520 10y ago
      I hate to do this but I have to quote you, "You mistake concurrency with parallelism."
      • di4na 10y ago
        Not really. Once again. What stop completely concurrent code to run on different schedulers ?
        • ww520 10y ago
          What you described is concurrency. What OP was talking about is parallelism.
• sbov 10y ago
  If every call is an async message but the next step in your algorithm always depends upon the result/outcome of that async message you are programming a sequential algorithm wrapped in concurrent clothing. I would claim that even if you use Erlang and distribute it across multiple processes your program doesn't actually exhibit concurrency. If you want to argue otherwise that's fine, but you just push the problem out: your program is "concurrent" but you gain zero benefits of concurrency, and when you distribute it across multiple cores to try to make it run in parallel it might be concurrent but by definition it will not be parallel. Either way you want to slice it you have a big problem with this line of thought. Edit: from my experience it is easy to write Erlang programs that exhibit something not exactly the same as, but similar to, this sort of behavior.