Re: Resource revocation

From	Don Y <this@isnotme.com>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: Resource revocation
Date	2013-07-27 09:29 -0700
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<kt0sgo$rj2$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(12 earlier) <%_AIt.8480$kN5.4994@fx05.am4> <ksunj6$qmd$1@speranza.aioe.org> <pfCIt.19105$FS6.3196@fx10.am4> <ksv3sg$n7i$1@speranza.aioe.org> <P0MIt.27653$Ma6.4004@fx27.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Tom,

On 7/27/2013 2:02 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

>>> SRT perf stats of the type I mentioned are common within
>>> the telecom industries, where performance, end-user
>>> irritation and, (in limiting pernicious cases) correctness
>>> are appropriately described by "mostly met" time intervals.
>>
>> Ah, makes sense.  Yes, here telco services (at least LAND lines)
>> are regulated to the level of performance they must provide.
>> (I don't think there are any such guarantees for cellular
>> service?)  And, this is evident in people's expectations
>> of that service!
>
> They may not be regulated, but internally inside networks
> the latency is still specified - and measured so that one
> subsystem supplier can push responsibility onto another
> supplier.

Ah, OK.  You are referring to networks in the more modern sense
(I was interpreting your comments in the classic telecom sense
of "PSTN")

> More importantly it is impossible to regulate the vagueries
> of the radio propagation channel. People often complain
> that multipath reception causes problems, but in mobile
> comms it is *required* in order to get reception in
> non-line-of-sight positions!

Yup.  But, here, there is a silent push for telecom providers
to move away from "wired land lines" as they are more costly (?)
to maintain *and* subject to stricter regulation on QoS than
wireless services.

E.g., rather than replace existing/damaged land lines, providers
would like to provide residences with "immobile cellular stations"
that give them access to the wireless network at their "fixed"
home-line.

>>>> The important distinction is that it has nothing to do with
>>>> the "magnitude" or "frequency" of the times involved.
>>>> "Hard" and "soft" are not synonyms for "Fast" and "slow".
>>>> (or "often" and "seldom")
>>>
>>> We are in violent agreement there!
>>
>> I do not understand why these misconceptions persist.  Don't
>> folks teach these things anymore?  Or, have so many folks
>> resorted to "real fast" examples that the message becomes
>> distorted:  people thinking "real fast" is the issue and
>> not "timeliness"?
>
> Two reasons:
>   - "those that can do, those that can't" teach
>     the next generation

Actually, I was fortunate to have reasonably good instructors.
But, I think it was a different era -- where you had to exert more
discipline over your "art" than the current reliance on automated
tools, "fleshy" languages, bloated libraries, etc.

>   - as employment expands and becomes "old hat", the
>     brightest minds no longer go into the field and
>     the top 1% are replaced by the top 10%

Yes.  And employers look to find ways to "dumb down" the
requirements for the folks they "need" in those positions.
Software bloat, hardware overkill, etc.  Makes you wonder
what will happen when we eventually *do* hit a limit and
suddenly have to relearn Ye Olde Ways to make continued
advances!  :<  (hopefully, that'll be past *my* time!  :> )

> If I was starting out again, I'd go into synthetic
> biology.

<frown>  I like mechanisms.  (I guess you can argue that creating
an organic mechanism would be comparable).  Hence, I am not usually
interested in "desktop software":

"Oooooh! Look! I made it blink!"
"BFD.  Watch me cut a pentagonal hole in this piece of steel...".

>> I see this in lots of places.  Folklore displacing science.
>> (e.g., don't use dynamic memory allocation; don't use recursion;
>> etc.)
>
> The "correct reason" for avoiding malloc and
> recursion is to enable the possibility of
> correctness proofs. But you know that.

Actually, I think more often it is just fear of "common" bugs.
(then why not learn how to use these things more effectively?)

I happen to be a huge fan of recursion as it makes so many
algorithms *so* much easier to implement correctly, out-of-the-box
*and* easier to understand (i.e., the equivalent iterative solutions
always look like there is a lot of housekeeping going on *in* the
code -- lots of opportunities for "little errors").  But, I'm also
careful to make sure something in the data implicitly controls the
depth of the recursion.

For example, I use a recursive "matching" algorithm in one of my
TTS systems.  But, rather than letting the "input" drive the
recursion, I let the *template* do so -- since I can ensure all
of the "const" templates have implied limits to the recursion
(but I can't make that same guarantee when processing arbitrary
"input")

The malloc argument I think is just a failure of folks to think
about how memory is consumed in their application and, how the heap
is administered/implemented in their runtime.  E.g., I can often
guarantee that malloc handles requests in *constant* time.  So,
why *not* use it?

> More subtly, interpreted = slow. To thoroughly confuse them,
> I point them to HP's Dynamo experience where an
> emulated processor running C outperforms the same
> non-emulated processor running optimised C (because
> the emulation enables the system to optimise the
> code that is actually executed, rather than the
> code that the compiler is forced to conservatively
> guess will be executed.

Yup.  Or, "hand optimized" is better than the compiler's
optimizer.  Or, vice versa.  Too much folklore and not
enough hard/empirical data!  Yet, people rely on these
assumptions to make significant design decisions...  :<

--don

Thread

Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-25 12:23 -0700
  Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-25 12:51 -0700
    Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-25 15:00 -0700
      Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-25 19:38 -0700
        Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-25 22:12 -0700
          Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-25 23:37 -0700
            Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 01:13 -0700
              Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-26 02:48 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 04:19 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-26 09:46 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 10:21 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-26 19:30 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 11:56 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-26 20:08 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 13:11 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-26 12:31 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-27 11:08 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> - 2013-07-29 09:16 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-29 10:22 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 11:22 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-27 08:56 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2013-07-26 19:25 +0200
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-26 10:51 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-26 19:21 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-26 11:50 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-26 19:42 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 12:43 -0700
                Does the Buddha have a real time nature? ;)  (was Resource revocation) Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2013-07-26 17:06 -0400
                Re: Does the Buddha have a real time nature? ;)  (was Resource revocation) Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 17:12 -0700
                Re: Does the Buddha have a real time nature? ;)  (was Resource revocation) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-27 09:44 +0100
                Re: Does the Buddha have a real time nature? ;)  (was Resource revocation) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-27 09:45 +0100
                Re: Does the Buddha have a real time nature? ;)  (was Resource revocation) Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-27 12:28 -0700
                Re: Does the Buddha have a real time nature? ;)  (was Resource revocation) Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2013-07-27 14:11 +0200
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 12:40 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-26 21:29 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 13:52 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-26 22:55 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 17:22 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-27 10:02 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-27 09:29 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-27 18:20 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-27 12:48 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-27 22:57 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-27 16:18 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2013-07-31 16:33 -0400
                Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-07-27 22:53 +0300
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-27 22:42 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-27 16:41 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-27 16:49 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-07-28 08:39 +0300
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-27 23:11 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2013-07-31 16:15 -0400
                Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-08-01 00:13 +0300
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-27 15:16 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-27 23:05 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-27 15:37 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-27 23:38 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-27 16:08 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-28 01:16 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-27 18:43 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-07-28 09:01 +0300
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-27 15:21 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-27 23:07 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 12:00 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-07-27 16:49 +0000
                Re: Resource revocation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-07-28 18:31 -0400
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-28 15:51 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-07-28 20:12 -0400
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-28 18:35 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-07-29 00:10 -0400
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 00:23 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-29 01:05 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 12:07 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-07-30 01:11 +0300
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 15:20 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> - 2013-07-29 15:42 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 16:41 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-07-30 08:51 +0300
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-30 09:09 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-30 01:30 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-30 10:04 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-30 02:55 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-30 07:12 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-30 16:59 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-30 13:17 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-30 10:12 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-30 18:48 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-30 20:18 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-07-31 09:27 +0300
                Re: Resource revocation [long] Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-31 00:47 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-30 02:50 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-07-30 13:22 +0300
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-30 07:24 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-30 01:17 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-29 19:28 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-07-29 11:40 +0300
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 11:44 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-07-29 20:56 +0100
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 13:16 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-07-30 00:08 -0400
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-30 23:41 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-31 00:58 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-31 10:18 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2013-08-02 06:19 -0400
                Re: Resource revocation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-03 02:26 -0400
                Re: Resource revocation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-28 19:31 -0700
                Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 00:44 -0700
  Re: Resource revocation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-07-25 22:42 -0400
    Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-25 22:12 -0700
  Re: Resource revocation "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2013-07-31 13:41 +0200
    Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-31 07:51 -0700
      Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-31 08:07 -0700
        Re: Resource revocation Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2013-07-31 15:55 +0000
          Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-31 10:18 -0700
      Re: Resource revocation "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2013-08-01 14:42 +0200
        Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-01 14:34 -0700
      Re: Resource revocation upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-08-02 09:08 +0300
        Re: Resource revocation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-02 07:26 -0700

csiph-web