3 ms·

The Go and Haskell language communities have been pushing those definitions. For the most part they seem to be winning as those definitions are trotted out eve

The Go and Haskell language communities have been pushing those definitions. For the most part they seem to be winning as those definitions are trotted out every time the subject comes up. https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Parallelism_vs._Concurrency https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Parallelism_vs._Concurre... http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism

taeric 12y ago
Any attempts to hijack common words for specific meaning in programming will abound with problems. I find it hardly surprising that many people view parrallelism as concurrently executing similar operations. The key being "similar operations." That actually fits with common uses of the words everywhere else. Consider, what does it mean to run parallel with something else? Means you are running a similar path. Not even necessarily at the same time. What does it mean to run concurrently with something else? Simply that you are running when it is.
- stonemetal 12y ago
  I agree it is odd to say that something is running concurrently but with out concurrency. The problem is threads and locks and what not are well known as concurrency primitives, programming with them known as concurrent programming, etc. So what do we call concurrent programming that doesn't make use of any of the concurrency primitives, concurrent programming techniques? We want to call it something but we don't want to co-opt current nomenclature. Parallel isn't "taken" and does an OK job of expressing what they are doing.
  - taeric 12y ago
    I would have thought something like "independent" or "n-agent" would have caught on. Though, I'm fine with some ambiguity, to be honest. And I am not at all "in the field." My point is really that it is a lost cause to try and use such an outside common word to have a specific meaning.

taeric 12y ago

Any attempts to hijack common words for specific meaning in programming will abound with problems. I find it hardly surprising that many people view parrallelism as concurrently executing similar operations. The key being "similar operations." That actually fits with common uses of the words everywhere else. Consider, what does it mean to run parallel with something else? Means you are running a similar path. Not even necessarily at the same time. What does it mean to run concurrently with something else? Simply that you are running when it is.

stonemetal 12y ago
I agree it is odd to say that something is running concurrently but with out concurrency. The problem is threads and locks and what not are well known as concurrency primitives, programming with them known as concurrent programming, etc. So what do we call concurrent programming that doesn't make use of any of the concurrency primitives, concurrent programming techniques? We want to call it something but we don't want to co-opt current nomenclature. Parallel isn't "taken" and does an OK job of expressing what they are doing.
- taeric 12y ago
  I would have thought something like "independent" or "n-agent" would have caught on. Though, I'm fine with some ambiguity, to be honest. And I am not at all "in the field." My point is really that it is a lost cause to try and use such an outside common word to have a specific meaning.