2 ms·
I don't think that it's a lost cause. Mainly because calling these things "real-time" is technically incorrect. Real-time computing is already formally defined
by javert 15y ago
I don't think that it's a lost cause. Mainly because calling these things "real-time" is technically incorrect. Real-time computing is already formally defined and well established.
Given the definition of real-time, one could actually create a real-time web or a real-time search. So there is still cause for confusion--or, at least, technical incorrectness--if one uses that terminology.
- IanDrake 15y agoSuggestions?
- zokier 15y agoLow-latency seems kinda descriptive if I have understood the 'real-time web' concept correctly.
- pgroves 15y agoI'd like to see a term that emphasizes that what web developers consider real time is "so fast it looks instant to humans," rather than guaranteed low latency that another system can rely on (or whatever you consider the true definition of "real time" to be). So maybe something like "blink speed." (Then we'd have blink speed apps on retina displays.)
- javert 15y agoI've heard "auto-synchronizing" suggested, but I think that's probably too wordy to catch on. How about "immediate"?