But concurrency is just "single core parallelism" anyways, so this isn't really germane to the discussion.

JS has neither.

Concurrency is not "single core parallelism". Concurrency describes tasks/threads of execution making independent progress of each other. Parallelism describes tasks/threads actually running at the same time.

>Concurrency is not "single core parallelism"

Of course it is. Concurrency gives the impression to the user that parallel processing is being done, even when it's not. That's why my parents old 386 could render a moving mouse cursor and a progress bar at the same time (usually).

Concurrency lets you do things "in parallel" even if you can't actually do them in parallel.

> mind expanding on this part?

Certainly. That part is a sentence written to be short and catchy. It sacrifices precision for reasons of brevity and style. It also doesnt mention either concurrency or parallelism, it just uses the word "parallel".

This is acceptable, because the post goes on to more precise statements later on, quote:

    It works for both i/o bound concurrency and cpu bound parallel computing.

End Quote.

When I write "I cannot go to the party, sorry." it doesn't imply that my plan was to literally "go" there , as in "walking on foot". But I think we can both agree that: "I cannot walk, drive, take public transport, have myself lifted by ways of a rented helicopter, or commute in any other way shape or form, to the party, sorry." would be a bit unwieldy for a text message.