On 10/31/06, Jason Bunting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/31/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Finite state machines don't really have much to do with the language > > you're implementing them in. It's just a concept. > > I understand that... > > > You might find some inspiration from Python FSM implementations, > > but it's pretty trivial to write one and there's a lot of different > > and equally good ways to do it. It depends on the situation. > > I guess I was simply wondering if someone had created any sort of helper > framework of sorts for doing it in JavaScript to save me some time - they > have similar types of components for C#, for example, that facilitate their > implementation; maybe I am smoking crack...
Probably smoking crack. FSMs are so trivial that using a framework for them in a dynamic language would be pretty silly. It makes sense in something like C# or Java where you have to do all of that delegate garbage because functions aren't first class. A popular meme these days is that "patterns" are just workarounds for limitations in the programming language. C# and Java have a lot of patterns. JavaScript (Python, Ruby, etc.) can of course do all of the same things, but you don't normally call one or two lines of code a "pattern". -bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MochiKit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
