Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-03 15:08:08
On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Christophe Henry wrote:
> Hi Franz,
>> SC 19.63630 s
>> Rhapsody 4.95109 s
>> MSM 0.90754 s
> Thanks for the review and for the very interesting comparison with
> Rhapsody, which I found impressive for several reasons:
> - Rhapsody is, I think, a pretty costly tool (I heard 15k) so I
> expected some cool fsm framework and instead the event dispatching
> really is just a simple switch on states of if/else on event ids, so a
> pretty basic implementation (though it would be interesting to see how
> more complicated machines are generated). Of course, as it is made for
> embedded development, this is understandable.
> - although this is such basic C-like implementation, Msm is 5 times
> faster. This is fascinating, the rootState_processEvent is so simple,
> one can wonder how it is possible to be faster.
> I find this a good example of the power of metaprogramming.
I have two (harsh?) questions to this community:
1. Is there a Boost library removal process, so that one can at least mark a library as deprecated? The duality, sort of, to the acceptance process.
2. *If* (i) MSM were part of Boost before Statechart and (ii) compilers could handle massive transition tables (in the order of a few hundred transitions), would Statechart have been accepted?
> I love C++ :)
I am certain that C++ loves you back, Cristophe.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk