[vivegi]

The book covers it in Appendix A.6 (p 424) in the v2023.06.11a PDF file.

> A.6 What is the Difference Between “Concurrent” and “Parallel”?

> From a classic computing perspective, “concurrent” and “parallel” are clearly synonyms. However, this has not stopped many people from drawing distinctions between the two, and it turns out that these distinctions can be understood from a couple of different perspectives.

> The first perspective treats “parallel” as an abbreviation for “data parallel”, and treats “concurrent” as pretty much everything else. From this perspective, in parallel computing, each partition of the overall problem can proceed completely independently, with no communication with other partitions. In this case, little or no coordination among partitions is required. In contrast, concurrent computing might well have tight interdependencies, in the form of contended locks, transactions, or other synchronization mechanisms.

> This of course begs the question of why such a distinction matters, which brings us to the second perspective, that of the underlying scheduler. Schedulers come in a wide range of complexities and capabilities, and as a rough rule of thumb, the more tightly and irregularly a set oparallel processes communicate, the higher the level of sophistication required from the scheduler. As such, parallel computing’s avoidance of interdependencies means that parallel-computing programs run well on the least-capable schedulers. In fact, a pure parallel-computing program can run successfully after being arbitrarily subdivided and interleaved onto a uniprocessor. In contrast, concurrent computing programs might well require extreme subtlety on the part of the scheduler.

[ascar]

Well, funnily enough this does read in contrast to the definitions used in Wikipedia, which are the ones I am also familiar with (I also do teach a class called "Parallel Programming" to graduates).

I do think the differentation make sense from a perspective of problem classes, as also evident from the comments here. Running independent problems in parallel to better utilize hardware ressources is very different from running problems in parallel in timesteps that have strong dependencies in regards to progress of the overall computation. And that's not a problem of the scheduler, but a much more general concept.

It doesn't sound to me like the author has the whole web service parallelism/concurrency in mind that is very apparent in the comments here.

[crabbone]

The definition found in Wikipedia, like many contentious subjects in programming, was written by people with strong political agenda and very little respect to the matter being described.

This applies to all sorts of ambiguous terms used very generously in the witchcraft of "applied computer science". Other examples include "object-oriented programming", "statically- or dynamically-typed language", "interpreted language", "dependency inversion", a bunch of "software patterns" and more. All this terminology is meaningless because there's never a way to tell if a language is object-oriented or not, if it's statically-typed or not and so on. Parallel vs concurrent is just one of those things where emotional attachment won over any attempt at rational thinking.

[preseinger]

that description is... not accurate

concurrent is about logical independence, parallel is about physical independence