[erlang-questions] : Subtle behaviour of Erlang scheduler
Tue May 29 08:55:08 CEST 2007
On 2007-05-28 22:52, Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB) wrote:
> Corrado Santoro wrote:
>> But this does not mean that, in my opinion, the Erlang
>> priority system has a serious flaw and should be rethought.
>> Probably, in a telecommunication system, priorities could not
>> be so important, but if you use Erlang in real-time embedded
>> environment (and it's argued that Erlang is for
>> soft-real-time systems),
1 imho embedded and real-time are orthogonal. ie, a system can be
embedded and not real-time. (yes, i am including both hard and soft real
2 when taking some computer courses at the local university i found that
the view held by the teachers/researchers there was that priorities was
not a correct way to design hard real time systems. they where only
suitable for soft real time. since i was at the time working for a real
time operating systems company selling a priority based real time system
for hard real time i tried to argue against this. it turned out that
they had a much harder view of hard real time than we did. our operating
system was originally created for soft real time.
Those were the days...
EPO guidelines 1978: "If the contribution to the known art resides
solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not
patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims."
More information about the erlang-questions