On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:36:22 -0800 (PST)
"Wolfgang Jeltsch-2 [via Haskell]"
Is this really ideal for OO? I thought that in a cellular automaton, all cells have to change synchronously. In addition, cells have to access the old states of their neighbours to compute their new states. So you would have to heavily synchronize the objects.
In this light, I’d say that the distributed OO approach isn’t very practical. A global control of the whole system might be better.
Note that I’m by no way an expert in cellular automata. I’m just thinking of the game of life. :-)
Best wishes, Wolfgang
Hi Wolfgang, I don't yet have experience with cellular automata either. What u say seems plausible, but then the life game might have been coded that way, because most OO language don't offer concurrent objects and the distributed OO approach (seems to be a very recent concept). Looking at life u probably could save time, if u only would evaluate code on cells, where the neighbors have changed status. So rather than triggering them all centrally and each checks its neighbours, we could use the concept: - let the active ones trigger the neighbours & so pass on activity
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
______________________________________ View message @ http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/H98-OOHaskell-getting-started-with-obje...
To unsubscribe from H98, OOHaskell - getting started with objects in Haskell, visit http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3338991&code=cGhpbGlwcC5ndXR0ZW5iZXJnQGdteC5uZXR8MzMzODk5MXwxNDUxNzE5MDIw
-- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/H98-OOHaskell-getting-started-with-obje... Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.