Conference thebay::joyoflex

    	Having worked with both real time computing and simulated time
    computing I would hate to see simulatedtime, and even simulated-time
    doesn't look quite right to me.

    The source of the writers' and editors' dismay is that we have
    something called a "Style Guide" that determines how we treat
    grammatical and stylistic nits such as whether to hyphenate real
    time and where to put the commas when punctuating a series of
    nouns.  One of our duties, often specified in our job contracts,
    is to make sure writing leaving the department conforms to this
    style guide.  The idea isn't to keep the language from changing
    but simply to make sure everything that comes out of the group
    treats the same construct the same way. 
    
    In the style guide our group uses, we would write "real-time
    computing" but "computing done in real time."  One word, realtime,
    is not one of our options. 
    
    That means if you provided me with some information, such as a
    spec or a mail message answering a question, [I am assuming from
    the general situation in your note that you're not a writer at DEC
    at present?} and you used "realtime" throughout, I'd have to go
    through and figure out whether each usage of "realtime" should be
    hyphenated or two words, and the more I had to do that, the more
    annoyed I'd be with you. 
    
    On the other hand, if you're doing my job review, and you want to
    write "realtime" and even "simulatedtime" . . . well, be my guest!
    :) :) :)
    
    --bonnie 

    
    As far as *correct* English is concerned, I don't think that any
    of real time/real-time/realtime are incorrect.  However, as Bonnie
    says, you should at least be consistent throughout all corporate
    documentation.
        
    To digress slightly: is there another way of saying `real time',
    which is more meaningful?  After all, isn't *all* time real?
    
    Mat.
    *:o)
    
    PS  I would agree with .0 in that `real time' is like `data base',
        but `aeroplane' is a different matter.  Anyone care to disagree?

    Slow motion and fast motion aren't "real time".
    
    "Slow motion" is a motion picture/TV technical term which I think is
    popularly understood for its visual results, if not the technical
    means. People won't confuse it with "real time", even if they don't
    understand what "real time" means. I think you could even define (in
    some loose sense) "real time" as "the real thing and not like slow
    motion" and most people would get the right idea.
    

    As one who holds an FAA Airman Certificate which says "Airplane single
    engine land, instrument; commercial privileges, glider (aero tow only)"
    I have no idea what an "aeroplane" is. 

    A lot of people certainly do confuse what real-time is ... just
    look at some competitors ideas of real-time ... What they talk of
    as real-time is what we would refer to as interactive.

    "Interactive with good response" is the computer
    responding to typing in real time. 
    
    Not necessarily fast, but certainly real time. And not
    what I mean by the term either.

    My original question had to do with the adjective "real-time" or
    "realtime" as used to modify nouns such as "system", "computing",
    "scheduler", etc. I did not mean to include the usage "real time",
    as in "...the events must be processed in real time...", where the
    adjective "real" is used to modify the noun "time". I would NEVER
    suggest that these two parts of speech should be combined into a
    single word; just what kind of pervert do you take me for, anyway???
    
    In fact, one of the reactions I have gotten from writers/editors (to
    the adjective "realtime") is just that given in 599.2. "You can't spell
    it without a hyphen because it's not in the Style Guide." When I ask
    how one "fixes" the Style Guide, I get a look of mixed horror, disgust
    and disbelief, but no real answer.
    
    OK, Bonnie - so how do you change the Style Guide?
    
    Bill 

    How do you change any bible?
    
    < horror, disgust, disbelief .....>

        For further discussions of real-time computing try
        LDP::REALTIME (wonder why they didn't hyphenate it? 8^)

        To change the style guide: Go to every department that uses it
        and state your case; see if they care; forget the whole idea.

    re: .8 
    
    Style guides are usually reviewed periodically as they get out of
    date. Around here that's about every 3-4 years, sometimes more
    often if groups merge.  Generally the rules about an existing term
    won't be changed from guide to guide unless general usage has
    changed.  Only logical, when you consider that the purpose of a
    style guide is to introduce consistency across manuals and across
    time. 
    
    So the next time your group's style guide is reviewed, put in your
    complaint.  If more people are using "realtime" than are using
    "real-time" or "real time" for the adjective, you might get it
    through -- for instance, if that's what industry publications are
    using.  [I wouldn't know, though.  We don't have much occasion to
    refer to real time when writing about VAX information architecture
    products.]
    
    I'm surprised you're getting shock, disbelief, and horror -- it
    sounds like one of those "Who cares?" issues for most writers. 
    
    --bonnie

    It seems to be accepted both in English and in science that
    an X-ray machine (adjective-nounadjunct noun) produces X rays
    (adjective noun).
    
    I would say that a real-time scheduler tries to respond to
    events in real time.
    
    Ofcourse, realtime is allright for those who think that all
    idioms should be written without spaces.
    
    I had to miswrite noun adjunct, above, in order to (whoops,
    inorderto) describe the spacing of the actual words.  I don't
    think that nounadjunct is correct.