On Nov 21, 2007 3:49 AM, Laurent Deniau
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
Conal Elliott wrote:
Moreover, functional programming makes it easy to have much more state than imperative programming, namely state over *continuous* time. The temporally discrete time imposed by the imperative model is pretty puny in comparison. Continuous (or "resolution-independent") time has the same advantages as continuous space: resource-adaptive, scalable, transformable. Yes, that's true, but isn't that also the problem with FRP? I mean, most of the papers I'm reading about (A)FRP indicate that no matter how nice it is to have the continuous time model
I agree with Conal, it's not a continuous time model but a resolution-independent time model.
What do mean by resolution-independent vs continuous? I meant them more-or-less synonymously. Semantically, there's no notion of resolution. When it's time to introduce a resolution for discrete rendering, there's no resolution imposed by the model.
The reason it that Arrows (like Monads) encapsulate the sequence of transitions. Unless the time is a parameter of the transition, it is independent of the time (resolution), but still captures its ordered nature.
I'm confused again. I don't think of Arrow as implying transitions at all.
to get fine grained control over execution times and resources, one needs to fall back to the discrete delta-time approach?
If you need synchronization, yes.
Why? What about synchronization implies discretness in the model? - Conal