You're reciting an obfuscated tautology -- hard things are hard.
Try on this analogy: Moving in deep blizzard conditions is hard. Using vehicles with tracks and skids would make that easier, but that's obviously not a sensible and useful vehicle because it would suck for driving on dry highways.
But most things are not hard. Hard things can be dealt with if and when they come up through documentation and training. Dealing with them by making easy things equally hard is silly.
You could just as easily apply this reasoning to goto statements. Also to memory management. I'm not saying you don't have a point here -- I'm on board with "the right tool for the job" -- but your analysis could be a bit more nuanced.
I don't think you understand what my reasoning is, because it would generally counsel against goto and manual memory management, which are harder tools for solving harder problems, and are usually unnecessary.
That you shouldn't restrict the use of certain tools/constructs/features in order to make areas like concurrency easier. Apparently you misunderstood my analogy. For one thing, it is an analogy, and not a statement you would use goto and manual memory management.
would generally counsel against goto and manual memory management, which are harder tools for solving harder problems,
That is a matter of scale. At small scales, "just using a goto" seems easier. It's only at larger scales that it becomes untenable spaghetti, so is harder. Herein is another analogy which can be related to concurrency and parallelism.
Try on this analogy: Moving in deep blizzard conditions is hard. Using vehicles with tracks and skids would make that easier, but that's obviously not a sensible and useful vehicle because it would suck for driving on dry highways.
But most things are not hard. Hard things can be dealt with if and when they come up through documentation and training. Dealing with them by making easy things equally hard is silly.
You could just as easily apply this reasoning to goto statements. Also to memory management. I'm not saying you don't have a point here -- I'm on board with "the right tool for the job" -- but your analysis could be a bit more nuanced.