Re: [boost] [msm] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-03 17:54:42

On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:

> David Bergman wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Christophe Henry wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> There isn't - and there shouldn't be. Once one employs a library
> in a real program, he has to be sure that it's going to be around
> an indefinate amount of time. Otherwise, the maintainence
> of the application which uses it isn't under control of application
> developer anymore.
> 
> One could suggest that there be a process of "recommendation"
> but that's going to be pretty subjective.  I think this should
> be handled in a way that boost doesn't currently provide for.
> 
>> 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 don't think the answer to that question is relevant to anything.

To anything, really? In fact, a hypothetical positive answer to that question would indicate that MSM is as good or better*, ignoring compiler limitations. Come on, folks, let us face it: we are about to have two *very* similar FSM libraries here, so it should be fair to ask whether one is - feature-wise - better* than the other. No? We do not have this much overlap in any other library w.r.t. features and interface. We have the Spirit/Regex overlap, but that overlap is only partial, and Spirit handles more while Regex handles the intersection (arguably) in a simpler manner. Definitely simpler for developers not used to embedded DSLs in C++.

* - yes, I did use a subjective term

> Personally I don't see any problem in having more than one
> library address the same problem as long as they are different
> in some substantive way.
> 
>>> I love C++ :)
> 
> I'm sure we all do.
> 
>> I am certain that C++ loves you back, Cristophe.
> 
> I'm not so certain about this at least in my personal case.

We have had our problems over the years, with a lot of fights about proper anonymous object creation (and destruction) and some heated arguments about NVO.

/David