> It is, using standard industry terminology. Just to add some support here, concurrency definitely has very little to do with actual independence of progress.

> It is, using standard industry terminology. Just to add some support here, concurrency definitely has very little to do with actual independence of progress. It has far more to do with encapsulation of knowledge (for an active agent, not a passive entity like an object [^]), and how different agents coordinate to exchange that knowledge. An echo server + client is a concurrent system, despite having only one meaningful scheduling of actions over time (i.e. no interleaving or parallelism). Serialization and parallelism are both global properties, as they require a perspective "from above" to observe, while concurrency is a property local to each task. I can appreciate everyone is saying upthread, but I've definitely found it valuable to think about concurrency in these terms. [^] Even this is overselling it. You can easily have two logical tasks and one physical agent responsible for executing both of them, and this is still a concurrent system. Dataflow programming is a lot like this -- you're not really concerned with the global parallelism of the whole system, you're just describing a series of tasks over local knowledge that propagate results downstream.