I found only one occurrence of the word task in the document. The entire paradigm of task parallelism is omitted. The style is heavy. I consider myself skilled

I found only one occurrence of the word task in the document. The entire paradigm of task parallelism is omitted. The style is heavy. I consider myself skilled in the area but struggled to map wording to my conceptual framework or experience. For a novice, most of the text is probably totally impenetrable. As an example: > Locking can have coarse- or fine-grained synchronization granularity, where coarse-grained granularity trades concurrency for deterministic execution while fine-grained granularity is more concurrent but less predictable. That's a property of the program (or the programmer), not locking as such. Fine-grained locking is of course as reliable and predictable as coarse-grained but when an operation involves multiple updates that must appear as atomic (a transactional guarantee, f.e.), coarse-grained locking is straightforward and fine-grained locking is more difficult to get right. There is no way, however, the programmer should accept possibly incorrect updates on the basis that now the program runs faster. > Declarative concurrency models reduce the need to make trade-offs between concurrency and correctness ... Now that's a huge statement. How can that trade-off be justified in the first place (it can be!)? Do we really have a need and accept that trade-off with fine-grained locking above? I would not insist my interpretation is right but that's exactly my point.