quoting the article: > Concurrency is like having two threads running on a single core CPU. > Parallelism is like having two threads running simultaneously on

quoting the article: > Concurrency is like having two threads running on a single core CPU. > Parallelism is like having two threads running simultaneously on different cores > It is important to note that parallelism implies concurrency but not the other way round. Aurgh! I don't think this attempted definition-by-simile is helpful, or even somewhat correct. I much prefer yosefk's way of framing things: > > concurrent (noun): Archaic. a rival or competitor. > > Two lines that do not intersect are called parallel lines. ... > Computation vs event handling > With event handling systems such as vending machines, telephony, web servers and banks, concurrency is inherent to the problem – you must resolve inevitable conflicts between unpredictable requests. Parallelism is a part of the solution - it speeds things up, but the root of the problem is concurrency. > With computational systems such as gift boxes, graphics, computer vision and scientific computing, concurrency is not a part of the problem – you compute an output from inputs known in advance, without any external events. Parallelism is where the problems start – it speeds things up, but it can introduce bugs. ... > concurrency is dealing with inevitable timing-related conflicts, parallelism is avoiding unnecessary conflicts yosefk's whole essay about this is great: https://yosefk.com/blog/parallelism-and-concurrency-need-different-tools.html https://yosefk.com/blog/parallelism-and-concurrency-need-dif...