| ??? 01/15/11 10:26 Modified: 01/15/11 10:54 Read: times |
#180612 - sweeping generalisation Responding to: ???'s previous message |
You still haven't said what you mean by, "non arbitrary".
Andy said:
Justin said:
Dare I say, that using an RTOS on an 8051 would actually hinder ones processing performance. I think that would be far too much of a sweeping generalisation! Justin Fontes said:
I do not think that is a sweeping generalization. Well - we'll clearly just have to disagree on that one, then! An RTOS consumes valuable memory and CPU cycles. This implies that the programmer has less to work with than before. But the question is whether the RTOS leaves more than would be left by having to do it "manually". There is also the question of developer effort - which is also a precious resource that needs to be used optimally. In some cases, it is more important than code size and/or execution speed. Hence I stand by my claim that it is a sweeping generalisation. :-) |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| it just struck me, is this why RTOS 'need' is so prevalent? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two Camps Here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Best Practice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a similar discussion... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I have always maintained the belief... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "non-arbitrary" ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "Real" Processing exposed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Too Specific | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sweeping generalisation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RTOS are very useful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think this got away ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Blocking/nonblocking I/O | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not The only reason | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I considered developer effort | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| code generator | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another neat feature | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there is such an attachment ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lots of tools available | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not really | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lots of C tools | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| widespread | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Missed the point! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Ecosystem | 01/01/70 00:00 |