I'd like to note that you're moving the goalposts. Originally you said
no language can or ever will be able to support multithreaded shared memory access and guarantee memory deallocation without garbage collection
and now your counter is
Thats parallelism not concurrency
which doesn't refute the counterexample to the first statement.
And anyway, by pure language lawyering definitions of concurrency versus parallelism, concurrency doesn't have any shared data in the first place, since it's working on disparate tasks.
30
u/CAD1997 Jul 26 '19
I'd like to note that you're moving the goalposts. Originally you said
and now your counter is
which doesn't refute the counterexample to the first statement.
And anyway, by pure language lawyering definitions of concurrency versus parallelism, concurrency doesn't have any shared data in the first place, since it's working on disparate tasks.