Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

If it's fast enough to make the user feel like they are interacting with the system in real time, I think it's a fair label.

At the end of the day, what is real time anyway? The sounds I hear and the light I see have taken time to get to me... all of experience is touched by some form of latency ;)

But the term has a very specific technical meaning [1], not just 'very fast'. This is analogous to when people say that 'NP-complete' is synonymous with 'very hard'. If I posted a problem to HN that I solved and that I found very difficult, but was not np-complete, and said "look at my solution to this np-complete problem" people would certainly (hopefully) complain.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing

I don't think all software needs to meet that specific definition to be considered "realtime" in some aspect of the word. Google agrees:


Does that meet the criteria of realtime computing? If not, is Google wrong?

Not really. The term actually refers to a specific (and in some cases crucial) characteristic, at least until a bunch of people dilute an important distinction to the point of meaninglessness.

"Event-driven" or "non-blocking" is probably a better fit, here. Or "web scale", because then people know you're just making up crap about the new hotness.

Didn't you lose this battle back when the original Warcraft came out, seventeen years ago or so? Real time is not a technical term anymore in most of the conversations where it appears; it's popular jargon and it means "the opposite of turn-based".

However, I wish you and L'Académie Française the best of luck. ;)

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact