TL;DR - the article seems to invent its own terminology for what many others might know as (roughly) "OMP parallel for" or a fork-join pattern [1] or even in PO

TL;DR - the article seems to invent its own terminology for what many others might know as (roughly) "OMP parallel for" or a fork-join pattern [1] or even in POSIX shell a "a & b & c & wait" pattern. IIRC, the Python multiprocessing module calls it "imap_unordered". The "map" part of "map-reduce". Etc. I'm sure it has many names in both parallel and concurrent contexts which (at this level) share some control flow concepts. When this pattern applies, it is indeed easier to use than less structured alternatives and error handling & resource clean-up & API design are perennial topics, but I'm not sure we need even more diverse terminology. For example, what the article dubs "nursery", most call a "pool" or "group". "Nurseries" are declared a new thing in a boldfaced paragraph with innovation claims only softened later or in footnotes. I think this is why a lot of pushback happens, but also see the funny [2] mentioned elsethread [3]. I did love the domesticated-wolf comparison pictures, though. :) (And I say that earnestly, not snarkily.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork%E2%80%93join_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork%E2%80%93join_model [2] https://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html https://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31956840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31956840