From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,590b710e61b9ddf8
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.241.37 with SMTP id wf5mr11334242pbc.4.1329186888062;
        Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:34:48 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 wr5ni22331pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Phil Clayton <phil.clayton@lineone.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Concurrency always is non-deterministic?
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <3e808f44-9571-4277-aa43-bc0f5fc0cf2b@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
References: <3721724.784.1329154891821.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcwt9>
 <1xf56jbutoa3$.sd93docj14m0$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2.24.35.98
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1329186887 15710 127.0.0.1 (14 Feb 2012 02:34:47
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2.24.35.98;
 posting-account=v7gx3AoAAABfjb9m5b7l_Lt2KVEgQBIe
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALENKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:10.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-02-13T18:34:47-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 13, 6:04=A0pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> The author seems to think that concurrent =3D time sharing.

That's how I read it too.


> It is not.

I agree.  I take the view that concurrency can be either time-slicing
or running in parallel (using multiple processing cores).  Either way,
it's still non-deterministic so the author's point about needing
synchronization still stands.

Phil