| ??? 12/02/05 17:21 Read: times |
#104601 - and deeper... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
Erik Malund said:
"it does have a definition" yes, so does "the cannonball express" No, I'm afraid you're wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=...%20express then try here: http://www.mindspring.com/~jhdeasy/lirr/page3.html Aside from the fact that that page doesn't seem to be providing definitions of anything, I can find no reference to the 'Cannonball Express' on it. as I stated: "Why do I use URTOS/DTOS or whatever? to stress that these thing have nothing to do with the webster definition of "real time". But they do. I quoted the Webster definition of real time in my previous post - take a look. Which is disagreeing with your definition. Er, how? Again, as it is a "a poor choice for what it describes" what is wrong with stating that? Nothing - what's your point? That you keep complaining about me doing so I'm not complaining about your stating that the term is a poor choice, I'm complaining about your refusal to accept the definition of that term. so, not only I, but a dictionary entry is "wrong" Yes, you're both wrong. And of course you, in your opinion, are right It isn't my opinion. I backed up my statement with facts. You are confusing facts with opinions. Show me some software you're written that responds 'without delay'. Well you state that immediately is "whenever, if less than...", I state it is "as fast as possible with no concern for anything else" Please stop making things up to back up your arguments. I did not state that immediately is "whenever, if less than...", I linked to a dictionary definition of immediately, which is 'without delay'. If you want to quote me, quote what I actually said. The issue is that the definition of RTOS and RT is not the same. You're right: RTOS: Real time operating system RT: Real time. If you want to ignore the meaning, go ahead, it should be obvious. Ignore the meaning of what? I'm not the one who's trying to ignore meanings... RTOS is an operating system which gives one an opportunity to write software which will run on the RTOS to form a real time system. If you use an operating system that is not 'real time' you cannot do this. You may achieve it by luck but you cannot guarantee it. Sure I can, where is the "luck" in responding to something in an ISR which is the only ISR with highest priority?. There is no luck, but interrupts are irrelevant. We are discussing operating systems. If, however, you use a URTOS and happen upon the time when it has interrupts disabled, you may have to wait too long. The documentation for an RTOS will provide all you need to determine the worst case timing in whatever circumstances you care to conjure up. That is the point of using one. Nothing is real time according to your definition of real time. Well your "real time" is just "unreal" ..rather than impossible? You stated in a previous post: "As I said before, in my opinion the expression 'real time' is a poor choice for what it describes" and I have no Idea why you are trying to convince me to use something that is "a poor choice for what it describes". I'm trying to convince you because there is a generally accepted definition for 'real time'. It is ridiculous to invent you're own terms for something that already exists. Your problem is deeper, though, that a refusal to use the term - you also don't understand what it means. You have stated that real time means 'now', however you cannot provide an example of something that responds 'now'. There's a good reason you cannot provide an example - can you guess what it is? |
