Re: [boost] [msm] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamboostorgtrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-06 04:51:25

>> So I guess for the use cases you encountered, I doesn't make much 
>> difference whether you'd use MSM or Statechart, right?
>
> Exactly. I want to find cases where it *does* matter, so I can justify
> another SFM library in Boost. I have tried the last few days to create
> toy-but-real-time apps with high load to see what gives.

Ok then, but you do realize that your original statement ...

> MSM and Statechart do not merely overlap, the do the exact same
> thing: letting the developer specify and execute a state machine.

... does come across as pretty universal? I mean there's no headroom here 
like "For my use cases ..." or "To me ...". In absence of such qualifiers 
the reader must assume that you think that from a purely functional POV the 
two libraries are exchangeable for *all* possible uses. Add your remarks 
regarding library removal and the reader must IMO come to the conclusion 
that you think *all* users will be better served with MSM once compilers 
catch up. For sure, MSM *does* look terrific and may well satisfy a good 
majority of FSM implementers but there are certain use cases (e.g. multi-TU 
FSMs) that MSM will probably never support. OTOH, Statechart will e.g. never 
be able to guarantee O(1) dispatch.

So yes, there *is* overlap but it is certainly far from total, right?

-- 
Andreas Huber
When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap
from the address shown in the header.