A system is said to be concurrent if it can support two or more actions in progress at the same time. A system is said to be parallel if it can support two or more actions executing simultaneously.
@jesse
Interesting definition and I can absolutely see the value in distinguishing between the two that way.
That doesn't seem to be the only definition though and not the one I'm used to. If you look at say the C++ memory model definition in the standard or Java Concurrency in Practice (to name one seminal book in that area) both use "concurrently" meaning "parallel".
e.g. from the standard: "Thus a bit-field and an adjacent non-bit-field are in separate memory locations, and therefore can be concurrently updated by two threads of execution without interference"
Yeah, I'm not too fond of trying to make a distinction for those terms... I always have to look up which one is which. But asynchronous has the same issue.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
However your comment falls prey to using concurrent and parallel synonymously where by async/await is in fact concurrent but not parallel.
medium.com/@itIsMadhavan/concurren...
@jesse Interesting definition and I can absolutely see the value in distinguishing between the two that way.
That doesn't seem to be the only definition though and not the one I'm used to. If you look at say the C++ memory model definition in the standard or Java Concurrency in Practice (to name one seminal book in that area) both use "concurrently" meaning "parallel".
e.g. from the standard: "Thus a bit-field and an adjacent non-bit-field are in separate memory locations, and therefore can be concurrently updated by two threads of execution without interference"
Yeah, I'm not too fond of trying to make a distinction for those terms... I always have to look up which one is which. But asynchronous has the same issue.