Re: [boost] [review] FSM Second Call for Reviews

From: andrea carbone (andrea.carbone_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-31 05:15:45

Hello, hope it is not too late for my review, but I am a specialist in
missing deadlines ;) 
This review will be somewhat 'fair' on the technical issues that I don't
feel to be able to discuss.
I just want to report my feelings as a programmer.
I mostly code robotics/machine vision tasks and use boost almost everywhere.

>> What is your evaluation of the design?

As a programmer I  find FSM really clean and straightforward for my
programming tasks.
I have evaluated StateChart but really found it too complex when
implementing and everytime 
switched to ad hoc solutions.

>>What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Cannot evaluate the implementation. But following the discussion, I found
that the author has
replied consistently showing high knowledge on implementation issues. 

>> What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Very good. The author took care to offer a simple introductory example that
let you 
familiarize with the interface very smoothly. The rest of the documentation
is then appropriate.

>> What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I believe it is really helpful. Almost in my day to day coding tasks.
Following the discussion it is my impression that very few users use
boost::statechart (correct me if I am wrong).
And everyone uses ad hoc implementation considering it better than FSM.
But .. I do not like 'ad hoc' solutions. And I believe that the author of
FSM has given
strong motivations to the design and implementation of FSM.
I had problems in reading the code offered by others while I felt
immediately confortable
with FSM examples. 

>> Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
problems?
I am developing a simple FSM for handling a process.
Simple states and transitions. I am currently using Xcode 3.1 (apple), gcc
4.0.1.
There seems to be problems with gcc-4.2 (the one shipped with apple
developer tools) for a missing header but cannot be more precise now.

>> How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
>> reading?
In-depth study?

Some coding afternoons.

>>Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
As a computer science PhD student, I should. ;)

>> Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? 
Yes.

again .. hope that my review will be considered.
And finally I would like  to express my appreciation to the author and all
the audience that 
has participated to the review process, giving me very interesting 
information on FSM theory and c++ coding.

regards,

andrea carbone
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-review--FSM-Second-Call-for-Reviews-tp19042336p19240585.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.