4 ms·
Parallelism and concurrency are certainly different. Don't think I'm saying otherwise. Our disagreement is that I'm saying parallelism is a subset/type of concu
by LukeHoersten 13y ago
Parallelism and concurrency are certainly different. Don't think I'm saying otherwise. Our disagreement is that I'm saying parallelism is a subset/type of concurrency and you are saying parallel execution can somehow not be concurrent execution.
I still stand by my assertion that you misunderstood the quote from the Haskell wiki:
"Rule of thumb: use Pure Parallelism if you can, Concurrency otherwise."
as something that supports your claim that parallelism is not concurrency.
From Wikipedia:
"In computer science, concurrency is a property of systems in which several computations are executing simultaneously, and potentially interacting with each other. The computations may be executing on multiple cores in the same chip, preemptively time-shared threads on the same processor, or executed on physically separated processors."
I find it hard to believe that parallel execution of multiple threads aren't "computations executing simultaneously" and therefor aren't concurrent.
Do you have any more detail about why you (or Rob Pike) think that parallel execution is not also always concurrent execution?
- _yosefk 13y agoPike's definition was "handling many things at once" vs "doing many things at once"; Sawzall or, to take a simple example he also used, a dot product where you compute sub-products in parallel, is basically doing one logical thing at a time - you have your inputs and you're computing the output. You're doing it with more resources but it's one thing. SIMD instructions or superscalar execution is like that and everybody calls it a form of parallelism and nobody ever calls this concurrency, though the Wikipedia quote could be used to defend calling this concurrency. I think I don't want to argue about whether parallelism is a special case or not, really; I'm fine with it being a special case, as long as I get the point across that this special case deserves special treatment and is underserved by tools aiming at the general case...
- LukeHoersten 13y agoSeems reasonable. Worth the discussion at least. Thanks for responding to my comments.