Re: [boost] [MSM] Is there any interest in C++14 Boost.MSM-eUML like library which compiles up to 60x quicker whilst being a slightly faster too?

Subject: Re: [boost] [MSM] Is there any interest in C++14 Boost.MSM-eUML like library which compiles up to 60x quicker whilst being a slightly faster too?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-02 13:41:22

Le 02/02/2016 19:19, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
> Le 01/02/2016 11:57, Kris a écrit :
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your feedback and time. I appreciate it a lot.
>>
>> Yea, I like having everything visible on the transition table and therefore
>> I put initial states as well entry/exit actions there.
>> I know you have a different view on that, however, I find it easier to
>> follow this way.
>>
>> Declare events on the fly its easy to do, however, I don't think it will
>> bring much value as events can be accessed outside
>> the transition table as well as they, most likely, will hold some data.
>> Therefore, I'm not sure about it. Might be useful to have
>> both options tho.
>>
>> I would love to compare MSM-lite/MSM-eUML to eUML2, however I haven't seen
>> it yet besides some code in the emails.
>> Can you share a link to the eUML2 version, please? I will defo add
>> benchmarks for it.
>>
>> I don't see any problem with that as MSM-lite is open source. I also offer
>> my help in designing and/or coding.
> Hi, IIUC you are proposing a 3rd MSM library in Boost, and you don't 
> pretend to make it a sub-library of Boost.MSM. If I'm right, I suggest 
> you to rename the namespace to msm_lite or whatever you find more 
> appropriated.
>
> BTW, with the figures you gave I believe that there would be an 
> interest in your library.
>> Well, I would like to keep the core of the library as small as possible as
>> in my experience a lot of users are actually not using
>> as many features. Having said that, I have no problems adding new features
>> via policies/extensions. Moreover, MSM-lite
>> is already used in some of the top growing mobile games, but yea, I do
>> agree that some users would like to see more features.
>> Anyway, are there any specific features you are talking about which are so
>> essential. I know that defer/history might be useful,
>> but I don't see much more features in MSM, besides explicit/fork states?
> Well these are already quite a few features. I have not see local 
> transitions (different from internal transitions).
>
> Please could you point me if you support choice points?
Oh, I see that you have anonymous transitions.

I see that MSM eUML defines the transitions like

target == source + event [guard] / action

but MSM-lite reverse the source and target

src_state == dst_state + event[ guard ] / action This is confusing.

Why have you chosen this syntax? Vicente