From: Martin Vuille (martin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-18 20:07:53
On 05 Aug 2008, you wrote in gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> Jurko GospodnetiÄ 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.
I am the review manager for the proposed FSM library, and
I was wondering whether you might have time to submit a more
The review period runs until the 20th, but if you need more
time it might be possible to extend the review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk