From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: Ron Kohl Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/07/29 Message-ID: <33DDCC11.3238@lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 260146563 References: <33D7F7CD.3E36@flash.net> Organization: LM SSRC Reply-To: ron.kohl@lmco.com Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Don Harrison wrote: > > Ken Garlington wrote: > > :I responded elsewhere in this thread about difficulties in trying > :to accurately measure thread timings at the object level, > > As I've already explained, SCOOP *does* support thread-level timing. The fact > this has not yet been tested in a realtime system doesn't invalidate any > logical arguments made about it. > Ken's point is still valid. If a 'system feature' (in this case SCOOP's thread-level timing capability) is claimed to support hard real-time and then this feature is implemented into a hard real-time system and does not perform according to it's advertisement, then the empirical data has provided a counter-example to the claims about that feature. The point being that empirical data can either provide examples to support theoretical claims/conjectures or it can totally invalidate such claims if it can produce a single, valid counter example.