[erlang-questions] : Subtle behaviour of Erlang scheduler

Bengt Kleberg bengt.kleberg@REDACTED
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 
time here).

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 mailing list