• doughless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    9 months ago

    A comment on the YouTube video makes a good point that we already have a better word for the concept of dealing with multiple things at once: multitasking. Using a word that literally means “things happening at the same time” just adds to the confusion, since people already have a difficult time understanding the distinction between multitasking and concurrency.

    • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah it always bothered me that they’re saying “concurrency is not concurrency”.

      I’m going to start using “multitasking” instead. That’s so much better. Who’s with me?

      • doughless@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        I will typically use the terms asynchronous and parallel when discussing the concepts, but I hadn’t thought about using multitasking until I saw that comment. I mean, even C# calls them “tasks”.

    • lysdexic@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      A comment on the YouTube video makes a good point that we already have a better word for the concept of dealing with multiple things at once: multitasking.

      I don’t think that’s a good comment at all. In fact, it ignores fundamental traits that separate both concepts. For example, the concept of multitasking is tied to single-threaded task switching whereas concurrency has a much broader meaning, which covers multi threaded and multiprocess execution of many tasks that may or may not yield or be assigned to different cores, processors, or even nodes.

      Meaning, concurrency has a much broader meaning that goes well beyond “doing many things at once”. Such as parallelism and asynchronous programming.

  • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Do we really need a video about this in 2024? Shouldn’t this be already a core part of our education as software engineers?

    • lysdexic@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Do we really need a video about this in 2024? Shouldn’t this be already a core part of our education as software engineers?

      I’m not sure what point you tried to make.

      Even if you believe some concept should be a core part of the education of every single software engineer who ever lived, I’m yet to meet a single engineer who had an encyclopedic knowledge of each and every single topic covered as a core part of their education. In fact, every single engineer I ever met only retained a small subset of their whole curriculum.

      So exactly what is your expectation?

      • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        My expectation is that this is something core that programmers should be aware of all the time. Forgetting about this is like forgetting what an interface is. It’s at the core of what we do. At least I think so, maybe I’m wrong assuming this is something every programmer should be aware of all the time.

    • NostraDavid@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Shouldn’t it? Yes, just like the ability to unit test, but that doesn’t stop schools from skipping over them either.