16.07.2018 09:44, Tom Ellis wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:17:43AM +0300, Paul wrote:
Once the FSM holds more than a dozen states, these advantages evaporate. This is point only where I can not agree. I used FSM with hundreds states/transitions. It was automatically generated, I only check them. Also I know that in car automatics FSM are widely used (BMW, Mercedes, Audi). Also it’s using in software for space industry widely. My IMHO is: FSM is most reliable way to do soft without bugs. Also it’s easy to verify them (for example, with transitions’ assertions) It's interesting to see all this chat about FSMs, when FSMs are essentially "just" a tail recursive function on a sum type. Yes :) But more good is to represent FSM as table or diagram - then you can easy find right/wrong transitions/states. Any information can be represented in different forms but only some of them are good for human ;)
Btw, there are a lot of visual tools to work with FSMs, to develop them and tests as well as to translate them to some language.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.