Why not? A thread allows for two parts of the program to be running concurrently. Whether or not they run in parallel is orthogonal. Why don't you think they allow for concurrency?
So who's wrong here? The world leading academics behind Haskell, Scheme and Oz? The industrialists and pragmatists behind Java? Or little old you?
The reality is that threads were created only to allow for concurrency. They were then re-used to allow for parallelism when we had multi-processors and then multi-cores.
Edit: does this guy work at Google? Unbelieveable.
Why not? A thread allows for two parts of the program to be running concurrently. Whether or not they run in parallel is orthogonal. Why don't you think they allow for concurrency?
A few citations to back myself up:
Concurrent Haskell is all about adding threads to Haskell: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base/C....
The Java tutorials on concurrency all use threads: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency....
The Scheme manual uses threads for concurrency: http://sisc-scheme.org/manual/html/ch06.html.
The Oz language also uses threads for concurrency: http://www.mozart-oz.org/home/doc/tutorial/node8.html.
So who's wrong here? The world leading academics behind Haskell, Scheme and Oz? The industrialists and pragmatists behind Java? Or little old you?
The reality is that threads were created only to allow for concurrency. They were then re-used to allow for parallelism when we had multi-processors and then multi-cores.
Edit: does this guy work at Google? Unbelieveable.