30 ms·
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. (als
by 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 agoYour 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.