Boost logo

Boost :

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. 

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at