
A parable about concurrency (demonstrated with comical cartoons) - lkrubner
http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/a-parable-about-concurrency-demonstrated-with-comical-cartoons
======
nvader
The terminology in that article is avowedly nonstandard; I found it off-
putting. "Parallelism/Concurrency is good when... Parallelism/Concurrency is
bad when...".

The author cites feedback received in an interview to this effect, and then
ignores it. I respectfully urge the author to reconsider this approach.
Technical words have precise meanings, you can't go Blubbing[0] up at more
technically precise language than you care to use and expect to communicate
effectively.

For comparison, here's Concurrency and Parallelism explained by two Robs (with
a bonus cartoon Gophers as well).

Rob Pike: Concurrency is not Parallelism [http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-
is-not-parallelism](http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism)

Robert Harper: Parallelism is not Concurrency
[https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/parallelism...](https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/parallelism-
is-not-concurrency/)

Open each link in a new window and tile them, close them both when you finish
reading/watching: that's concurrency.

Manage to read the article while watching the video at the same time: that's
parallelism. :)

[0] I mean to dismiss something in the same manner as described in the Blub
Paradox.

