Comment by CyberDildonics
3 years 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?
3 years 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?
Yes? 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.
Before 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?
Parallelism 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.