4 ms·

> Does it mean that it will be possible to create realtime apps with python? I'm not sure what you mean by realtime but usually real time means something else

by inglor 11y ago

> Does it mean that it will be possible to create realtime apps with python? I'm not sure what you mean by realtime but usually real time means something else and requires more deterministic behavior. If you mean applications that use non-blocking IO to great extent then yes, but this depends a lot on the ecosystem to provide libraries for async file io, database io and so on. The Python language left good infrastructure to use though. > Now that WebAssembly is coming - doesn't it mean that it could be possible to create both backend and frontend for realtime apps in python? Not anymore than we could before with asm.js unfortunately as seen in http://repl.it/languages/python3 http://repl.it/languages/python3 the problem is wrapping and the library, I hope a company "picks up the glove" and makes "Python for the frontend", sharing Python code between backend and frontend could be amazing.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
People have started to hijack the word realtime. It's truly sad, because now it just muddies up people's conversations. So now people have to ask, is it the one that keeps planes in the air or the one that makes sure your email badge counter updates.
- hamiltonkibbe 11y ago
  It is unfortunate. In most cases you can assume until proven otherwise that when someone says "realtime" they mean "really really soft soft-realtime" (sometimes referred to as "flaccidtime") rather than hard- or soft-realtime. Who needs planes when you have Javascript?
- jkarneges 11y ago
  Yes, for better or for worse, "realtime" (and sometimes "near-realtime") are used in the web community to refer to push technology as opposed to time constraints.
- Serow225 11y ago
  I wish there was a better alternative term for the web sense that I could promote, just to help un-hijack the word before it gets out of control. But I don't know of one that is likely to succeed. 'Responsive' makes sense to me but it already has another meaning in the web world. What about something like 'reactive' or 'on-the-fly'? People will never go for 'near real-time' because it sounds too weak in terms of its advertising value. Someone else below me suggested 'push', which is pretty decent but again it's an overloaded term... Thoughts or suggestions? :)
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    I'm not much of a wordsmith, but I am leaning towards "forthcoming".

by inglor 11y ago

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

People have started to hijack the word realtime. It's truly sad, because now it just muddies up people's conversations. So now people have to ask, is it the one that keeps planes in the air or the one that makes sure your email badge counter updates.

hamiltonkibbe 11y ago
It is unfortunate. In most cases you can assume until proven otherwise that when someone says "realtime" they mean "really really soft soft-realtime" (sometimes referred to as "flaccidtime") rather than hard- or soft-realtime. Who needs planes when you have Javascript?
jkarneges 11y ago
Yes, for better or for worse, "realtime" (and sometimes "near-realtime") are used in the web community to refer to push technology as opposed to time constraints.
Serow225 11y ago
I wish there was a better alternative term for the web sense that I could promote, just to help un-hijack the word before it gets out of control. But I don't know of one that is likely to succeed. 'Responsive' makes sense to me but it already has another meaning in the web world. What about something like 'reactive' or 'on-the-fly'? People will never go for 'near real-time' because it sounds too weak in terms of its advertising value. Someone else below me suggested 'push', which is pretty decent but again it's an overloaded term... Thoughts or suggestions? :)
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  I'm not much of a wordsmith, but I am leaning towards "forthcoming".