Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-05 12:08:40
>> Repeating: the MSM/Statechart overlap in features and interface is quite
>> unique to Boost.
> They definitely overlap in features and also in intent, but my understanding
> is that the interfaces are vastly different, and that's an important
> distinguishing feature. Am I missing something?
No you aren't. At first look, they seem similar, but as soon as you
concretely start writing a state machine with both libraries, like
Juraj could tell you (he did it), you'll start seeing that the
differences are there. Of course, both use states, events and
transitions but that's about all.
MSM bases itself on the transition table, while with Statechart, the
user writes his decisions in the react function.
Composites are full state machines with MSM, a simple state with Statechart.
MSM uses more metaprogramming, Statechart follows a solution with
multiple translation units.
The point is, the interfaces differ, the normal usage even more and
the "correct" way to use each (in the authors' eyes) much more as both
follow a completely different philosophy, as many heated discussions
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk