Single-core concurrency is concurrency is concurrency (you have different computations occurring concurrently, even if they are not executing at the same time). What it's not is parallelism.
Technically no, you can't have two things happening concurrently and but not finishing in the same time period.
But what a "thing" and how long a period is are up for grabs. If we choose period to be anything longer than 1 millisecond, then this library will finish executing both things in that time period.
Should I have thrown a literally in there? Literally Concurrent means at the same time. Parallel literally means non intersecting. I understand some dumbass has\is trying to co opt the language it doesn't mean I have to like it.
If one of them should mean one thing and the other the other why not have the one that literally means at the same time for the term that means at the same time. And have the one that means non intersecting mean threads of execution that are beside each other but not touching without lots of pain and suffering. Sorry, rant bit off.
I understand some dumbass has\is trying to co opt the language it doesn't mean I have to like it.
That's called a lingo or a jargon (in this case, programmer lingo), and it involves making up words or having a different definition for a given word in the correct context.
Comments
This isn't true concurrency. Scaling to 20 million requests per second over 40 cores on a single machine is true concurrency.
You're confusing concurrency [1] and parallelism [2] -- this is addressed on the bullet point before the one you quoted.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing
Single-core concurrency is concurrency is concurrency (you have different computations occurring concurrently, even if they are not executing at the same time). What it's not is parallelism.
Concurrent means at the same time. You can't have things happening concurrently but not at the same time.
Technically no, you can't have two things happening concurrently and but not finishing in the same time period.
But what a "thing" and how long a period is are up for grabs. If we choose period to be anything longer than 1 millisecond, then this library will finish executing both things in that time period.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1050222/concurrency-vs-pa...
This may help explain the difference: http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism
Should I have thrown a literally in there? Literally Concurrent means at the same time. Parallel literally means non intersecting. I understand some dumbass has\is trying to co opt the language it doesn't mean I have to like it.
If one of them should mean one thing and the other the other why not have the one that literally means at the same time for the term that means at the same time. And have the one that means non intersecting mean threads of execution that are beside each other but not touching without lots of pain and suffering. Sorry, rant bit off.
That's called a lingo or a jargon (in this case, programmer lingo), and it involves making up words or having a different definition for a given word in the correct context.