From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 22 Oct 92 15:38:13 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.co m!mksol!mccall@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (fred j mccall 575-3539) Subject: Re: What is "real-time"? Message-ID: <1992Oct22.153813.15179@mksol.dseg.ti.com> List-Id: In <719335132.5132@minster.york.ac.uk> mjl-b@minster.york.ac.uk writes: >The Burns and Wellings book writes off C fairly early on, because it has no >features for concurrency. Real-time and concurrency go hand in hand, and the >authors provide a fairly convincing argument. How many languages (other than Ada) actually provide support for concurrency (as opposed to getting it from the OS)? Does this mean that there was no such thing as real time software until Ada was available? An awful lot of real-time software has been written in LANGUAGES to provide no support for concurrency (like assembly). There seems to be something a bit off about this line of reasoning. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.