Re: [boost] [msm] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Michael Caisse (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-06 16:28:21

David Bergman wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>     
>
> Not far from, no. If you bring up one feature, multi-TU FSM, I would not call that "far". The overlap is 95%. No?
>
> Just look at the feature list of your own library, Statechart, as described in the Overview section. Which one of those features does *not* apply to MSM?
>
> /David
>   

Just to be clear David... A couple people have now brought up that the actual implementation
(not the feature set) is very much a differentiator for different targets. You continue to
point at "features". Do you not think that the implementation of a library is a consideration
for different targets?

michael

-- 
----------------------------------
Michael Caisse
Object Modeling Designs
www.objectmodelingdesigns.com