Once again, you said:

> I'm sorry, but the need for parallelism is exaggerated; it's mostly a fad.

So, what's your point? Every time someone talks about parallelism---whether it's legitimate or not---you see it as your duty to pontificate on the "fad" that is parallelism? You've completely and utterly missed my point, which had nothing at all to do with debating the legitimate use of paralleism in a specific case. That there are legitimate uses of parallelism is enough to make my point.

> It's just my experience that if you "need" to do it A LOT in applications, you are probably doing something wrong.

Again, so what? This has literally nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread.

So, umm, thanks for derailing the conversation into your own pet cause?

> And lambdas and OOP do fight over similar territory, or at least can if the language has certain features. For example, Java coders may say, "I need lambdas here because OOP can't do what I need." But it turns out Java's OOP can't do what's needed, not something inherent in OOP.

Again, so what? This seems like a useless academic point. At no point did I invite such navel gazing.