[Gazoo101]

> My point (and I think the points of others responding to you) is that parallel programming is not always hard.

Sure, and even more people commenting appear to be of the mind that it is generally hard.

> That's also what the author is saying.

It's not what author is explicitly saying in the statement I'm addressing if you re-read my original comment. There, the author isn't saying that it's not always hard, they're implying that it 'in general' isn't hard.

From your arguments, it would seem you think anything that actually runs in parallel (regardless of whether it programmed as such) can be considered 'parallel programming' and from that perspective, sure, it is super easy. But with that kind of reasoning, you can argue that anyone who only knows how to drive cars with automatic gears is actually a gear-shifting expert and shifting gears is really easy, because it happens automatically for them.