This page classifies a broad definition for real-time and then breaks into different categories (hard, soft, fail-safe, fail-operational).
Is the default definition of real-time "hard real-time", or does it always need to be defined by its classification?
My point around context is that no one in the web world is saying that soft real-time systems are hard real-time systems. That would be blatant misappropriation of a term. They are saying that "real-time" defaults to "soft" in the web world. Just like "real-time" defaults to "hard" in the embedded world.
I don't know if I would classify this project as the embedded world (despite it using hardware), because it's consuming a stream of packets and isn't at the actual physical device level. I may be misunderstanding what they're doing, but I believe this to be the case.
The broader reason why I commented in the first place is that your comment feels like gate-keeping of a term when most people are going to quickly pick up on the context of how the term is being used. I understand and agree with your point around hard vs soft, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you seem to think it is regarding what the default classification is in different contexts.
This page classifies a broad definition for real-time and then breaks into different categories (hard, soft, fail-safe, fail-operational).
Is the default definition of real-time "hard real-time", or does it always need to be defined by its classification?
My point around context is that no one in the web world is saying that soft real-time systems are hard real-time systems. That would be blatant misappropriation of a term. They are saying that "real-time" defaults to "soft" in the web world. Just like "real-time" defaults to "hard" in the embedded world.
I don't know if I would classify this project as the embedded world (despite it using hardware), because it's consuming a stream of packets and isn't at the actual physical device level. I may be misunderstanding what they're doing, but I believe this to be the case.
The broader reason why I commented in the first place is that your comment feels like gate-keeping of a term when most people are going to quickly pick up on the context of how the term is being used. I understand and agree with your point around hard vs soft, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you seem to think it is regarding what the default classification is in different contexts.