Hi Tony,<br><br>Reactive so far has focused mainly on events and functions of time (behaviors/signals), while Yampa on transformations between signals.&nbsp; I&#39;m in the process of building a higher-level interface with some semantic similarity to the arrow/Yampa style.&nbsp; See recent posts at <a href="http://conal.net/blog">http://conal.net/blog</a> to get some flavor of where I&#39;m going.&nbsp; The post &quot;Why classic FRP does not fit interactive behavior&quot; in particular mentions part of my motivation for doing something different from both classic FRP and Yampa.<br>
<br>&nbsp; - Conal<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/12/16 Tony Hannan <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:tonyhannan2@gmail.com">tonyhannan2@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello,<br><br>Can someone describe the advantages and disadvantages of the Yampa library versus the Reactive library for functional reactive programming, or point me to a link.<br><br>Thanks,<br><font color="#888888">Tony<br>
</font><br>P.S. It is hard to google for Yampa and Reactive together because &quot;reactive&quot; as in &quot;function reactive programming&quot; always appears with Yampa<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>