Re: [boost] FSM Review Announcement

From: Chris Knight (cknite_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-05 14:30:32

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> Jurko Gospodnetić wrote:
> >   What are the intended and actual differences from the already accepted
> > Statechart library?
>
> The main differences are simplicity and performance. The performance
> tests show difference by an order of magnitude, in the best case for
> Boost.Statechart. The overall design of Boost.FSM is geared more to
> compile-time code generation, while Boost.Statechart aims to support
> more scaled machines and therefore is geared towards run-time. There is
> a section in the docs that compares the libraries.

I can attest to the necessity of this. We have several exchange libraries that
require state machines to implement their data protocols but we use a 
home-brewed boost::mpl::inherit_linearly implementation because the 
features of Boost.StateChart simply brings in to many performance penalties
for our simpler usage that would fit within the Boost.FSM framework. In fact,
if I remember correctly, we used a thing on Boost.Vault called "FSM" as an 
implementation guide.