Re: [boost] [msm] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-06 16:39:51

On Dec 6, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Michael Caisse wrote:

> 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?

Yes, of course, which I have stated in various posts of mine.

I *know* that the implementations differ, but that was not what we were discussing here, was it? We are discussing whether the feature sets and interfaces are far apart or not.

/David