It seems to be a trend to use more and more IO in new FRP approaches.

Grapefruit's circuits encapsulate side effects, as does your approach

This is a big departure from the "pure" libs like Fran, Yampa, Reactive, ...

I wander if this is because of some fundamental problem with functional programming when it comes to FRP? 

Some people claim that IO is also pure, and I tend to agree if we can capture the state of the real world and rewind to it somehow :)

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Jeff Heard <jefferson.r.heard@gmail.com> wrote:
Check links...  god.  http://vis.renci.org/jeff/buster  (can you tell
I was up till 3am last night?)

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Jeff Heard <jefferson.r.heard@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes,sorry.  vis, not vs. http://vis.renci.org/buster
>
> It is a bit like grapefruit's circuits, but where Grapefruit circuits
> describe the flow of events from place to place, Buster never does.
> Events exist for all behaviours, to be selected by name, group, or
> source.  The other major difference is the |~| or "beside" operator,
> which describes concurrent application of behaviours.
>
> A last but somewhat minor thing is that the Event type is fairly
> general, allowing for multiple data to be attached to a single event
> and this data to be of many of the standard types (Int, String,
> Double, ByteString, etc) as well as a user-defined type.  Of course,
> such an event type could be defined for other FRP frameworks as well.
>
> -- Jeff
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:53 AM, minh thu <noteed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's vis instead of vs:
>> http://vis.renci.org/jeff/buster/
>>
>> 2009/4/2 Peter Verswyvelen <bugfact@gmail.com>:
>>> Sounds vaguely like Grapefruit's circuits, but I could be very wrong...
>>> The link you provided seems to be broken?
>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Jeff Heard <jefferson.r.heard@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Read more about it on its webpage: http://vs.renci.org/jeff/buster
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it’s to solve a particular problem.  And yes, this is a rough
>>>> draft of an explanation of how it works.  I’ve not even really
>>>> solidified the vocabulary yet, but I have this module which couches a
>>>> large, abstract, interactive (both with the user and the system),
>>>> multicomponent application in terms of a bus, inputs, behaviours, and
>>>> events.
>>>>
>>>>    * Time is continuous and infinite.
>>>>    * An event is a static, discrete item associated with a particular
>>>> time.
>>>>    * The bus is the discrete view of event in time at an instant.
>>>>    * A widget is an IO action that assigns events to a particular
>>>> time based only upon sampling the outside world (other events and
>>>> behaviours are irrelevant to it).  e.g. a Gtk Button is a widget, a
>>>> readable network socket is an widget, the mouse is an widget, the
>>>> keyboard is an widget, a multitouch gesture engine is a widget.
>>>>    * A behaviour is a continuous item — it exists for the entire
>>>> program and for all times — which maps events on the bus to other
>>>> events on the bus.  It is an IO action as well — where widgets only
>>>> sample the outside world and are in a sense read only, behaviours
>>>> encapsulate reading and writing.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>>
>>>
>>
>