6 ms·
Depending on what you’re doing, that really isn’t a low bar. Saying you can get decent performance on any hardware is the first step.
by oivey 3y ago
Depending on what you’re doing, that really isn’t a low bar. Saying you can get decent performance on any hardware is the first step.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- PheonixPharts 3y ago> get decent performance The issue is that in Computer Science "real-time" doesn't just mean "pretty fast", it's a very specific definition of performance[0]. Doing "real-time" computing is generally considered hard even for problems that are themselves not too challenging, and involves potentially severe consequences for missing a computational deadline. Which leads to both confusion and a bit of frustration when sub-fields of CS throw around the term as if it just means "we don't have to wait a long time for it to render" or "you can watch it happen". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing
- aleksiy123 3y agoThat link defines it in terms of simulation as well: "The term "real-time" is also used in simulation to mean that the simulation's clock runs at the same speed as a real clock." and even states that was the original usage of the term. I think that pretty much meets the definition of "you can watch it happen". Essentially there is real-time systems and real-time simulation. So it seems that they are using the term correctly in the context of simulation.
- dekhn 3y agoI don't think it's reasonable to expect the larger community to not use "real time" to mean things other than "hard real time as understood by a hardware engineer building a system that needs guaranteed interrupt latencies".