The author's article generally focuses on C (and possibly descendant languages), but the phrase I am critical of, does not. Furthermore, I explicitly consider a very broad selection of programming languages (many not C-derived) in my opinion. The author's phrasing, I'd argue, paints the entire concept of parallel programming as not hard.
There's some irony to the fact that you re-interpret my opinion as being very specific to C and (indirectly) posit that - in that specific case - parallel programming is hard, and then yourself go on to select a very specific case where parallel programming is not hard, because some matrix operations are independent.
I agree that there are languages that are explicitly built to make parallel programming easy. But in general, and not just related to c or c descendant languages, parallel programming is hard.
There's some irony to the fact that you re-interpret my opinion as being very specific to C and (indirectly) posit that - in that specific case - parallel programming is hard, and then yourself go on to select a very specific case where parallel programming is not hard, because some matrix operations are independent.
I agree that there are languages that are explicitly built to make parallel programming easy. But in general, and not just related to c or c descendant languages, parallel programming is hard.