Re: Cells compared to Flow-Based Programming



FB> FBP is very different:

from what you describe it's different only terminologically..

FB> When developing applications, you start with defining information
FB> packets (IP). In Lisp an IP could be a hashtable or any other Lisp
FB> object.

so IP is just a fancy way to say "any object"? maybe it matter for
distributed
implementations, where IPs have to be serializable

FB> Then you define some processes and interconnect them. A process has
FB> inputs and outputs for processing IPs. The process itself is a program,
FB> with local storage. A process can be instantiated multiple times and
FB> can be configured with configuration IPs (there are preemptive and
FB> cooperative multitasking implementations).

in Cells terminology, process is model (class), process instance is an
object,
interconnect is synapse.

FB> The main motivation of FBP is to reuse stable and tested processes for
FB> many applications.

so is OOP, and articles you've linked say that OOP is quite related to FBP

FB> I think Cells is more fine granular: there are not a few connected
black
FB> boxes, but a network of connected values.

in other words, Cells doesn't hide guts of processes from you, right?

FB> better, maybe this depends on the application. But I think every Cells
FB> network can be transformed to a FBP-like network, but the other
FB> direction would be more difficult, so FBP may be a more general
FB> concept.

for my untrained eye Cells seems to be like a particular implementation of
FBP concepts. can you show an example what general FBP can do
but Cells can't?


.