3 ms·

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concurrent http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concurrent http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concurrent http://en.wi

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concurrent http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concurrent http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concurrent http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concurrent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science) To state the obvious, you're attempting to make distinctions that either don't exist, or do not have a consensus. You need to find new words. Your definition of concurrent is just... wrong.

anaphor 13y ago
You're the one using the wrong words: actual experts on concurrency and parallelism disagree with you: http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/parallelism-is-not-concurrency/ http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/parallelism-... http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism http://ghcmutterings.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/parallelism-concurrency/ http://ghcmutterings.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/parallelism-co...
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Oh? Then why don't they say anything in their posts that disagrees with my view on the subject? (Hint: You're replying to the first comment I made in this thread, so the idea that I used the words "concurrent" or "parallel" in any particular way, much less wrongly, is objectively incorrect.)
plainOldText 13y ago
Maybe my post wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't trying to illustrate the word "concurrent" in its literal sense, but rather from a programming perspective. (also read gruseom's comment above) Concurrent and parallel, in their literal senses can be synonyms – and sure enough, if you read the first source you've just linked, at 2a you'll see concurrent defined as "in parallel". In the case of programming, a concurrent program is not parallel, though it could be if you have multiple cores.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Your post described only a possible manifestation of concurrency, and attempted to define that as what concurrency is in some sort of opposition to "parallel". I suspect we're actually in agreement that ideally "concurrent" would be a description of capability and "parallel" a manifestation of that capability, but the fact is you're never going to get everyone to agree on (or remember) that[1]. So, again, new words are needed. [1] Edit: I just found the later post of yours where you said this: "I like to imagine that concurrent processes, concur (agree) on how they should share the time slices of the CPU, and parallel processes don't ever give a damn about each other, cause each has its own core, and like parallel lines, they never meet." So, yet another novel definition of "concurrent". And yet you think other people are wrong. Heh.

anaphor 13y ago

You're the one using the wrong words: actual experts on concurrency and parallelism disagree with you: http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/parallelism-is-not-concurrency/ http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/parallelism-... http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism http://ghcmutterings.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/parallelism-concurrency/ http://ghcmutterings.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/parallelism-co...

nknighthb 13y ago
Oh? Then why don't they say anything in their posts that disagrees with my view on the subject? (Hint: You're replying to the first comment I made in this thread, so the idea that I used the words "concurrent" or "parallel" in any particular way, much less wrongly, is objectively incorrect.)

plainOldText 13y ago

Maybe my post wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't trying to illustrate the word "concurrent" in its literal sense, but rather from a programming perspective. (also read gruseom's comment above) Concurrent and parallel, in their literal senses can be synonyms – and sure enough, if you read the first source you've just linked, at 2a you'll see concurrent defined as "in parallel". In the case of programming, a concurrent program is not parallel, though it could be if you have multiple cores.

nknighthb 13y ago
Your post described only a possible manifestation of concurrency, and attempted to define that as what concurrency is in some sort of opposition to "parallel". I suspect we're actually in agreement that ideally "concurrent" would be a description of capability and "parallel" a manifestation of that capability, but the fact is you're never going to get everyone to agree on (or remember) that[1]. So, again, new words are needed. [1] Edit: I just found the later post of yours where you said this: "I like to imagine that concurrent processes, concur (agree) on how they should share the time slices of the CPU, and parallel processes don't ever give a damn about each other, cause each has its own core, and like parallel lines, they never meet." So, yet another novel definition of "concurrent". And yet you think other people are wrong. Heh.