Usually the combination of names for the theory means that researchers recognize both versions as largely equivalent (e.g. Newton-Leibnitz axiom).
The contention that the combined theories must be the definition of computability should be true about each theory in isolation. If a Turing machine cannot calculate any computable problem, then why bother defining a Turing machine? What is the purpose of the definition if not to prove that any computable problem can be solved using the device? The same goes for lambda calculus.
What you are describing sounds like non-deterministic behavior of a thread-safe primitive, e.g. non-deterministic ordering in a synchronized queue. On the other hand, a true race condition in the queue could mean messages overwriting each other.
Having recently listened to John McWhorter's lectures on the history of human language, I was surprised to find out that there is no reliable evidence for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that language affects thought). The Wikipedia article on linguistic relativism states:
> The strongest form of the theory is linguistic determinism, which holds that language entirely determines the range of cognitive processes. The hypothesis of linguistic determinism is now generally agreed to be false.
The Pragmatic Programmer is pretty zealous about DRY. For instance, the authors describe how they inserted sample code snippets into the book using specialized scripts developed for that purpose. A simple copy paste wasn't good enough (see p. 100-101). Granted, they had wanted to make sure the code snippets were tested and updated as needed, but repeating code anywhere seems to be a bad practice according this definition.
When you say non-language, do you mean unrelated to OCaml specifically or any language? Facebook implemented its infer linter for C, C++, Java, and Objective-C in OCaml: https://github.com/facebook/infer. When I worked at Bloomberg, they released BuckleScript for JS development. Not sure if that caught on though.