3 ms·
What point are you trying to make now? You just said: Parallelism is a physical thing, concurrency is a logical thing. So by your own definition, wouldn't mul
by CyberDildonics 3y ago
What point are you trying to make now? You just said:
Parallelism is a physical thing, concurrency is a logical thing.
So by your own definition, wouldn't multi-core concurrency be parallelism?
- vore 3y agoYes? Parallelism is inherently concurrent but concurrency is not inherently parallel. But single core concurrency still exists as a form of non-parallel concurrency. The point I'm trying to make is down to brass tacks, single core concurrency is a lot simpler than multi core concurrency, because you don't need any hardware cooperation.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoBefore you were saying they are two different things, now you're saying they are the same when you have multiple cores and not the same when you have a single core. If they're the same when you have multiple cores, isn't there just single and multi-core concurrency by your own definitions? If so, why are you making a distinction of parallelism and concurrency?
- dkersten 3y agoParallelism is concurrent. Concurrency isn’t necessarily parallel. There are still plenty of single core systems out there running concurrent software, even today, for example embedded systems.