2008/12/28 Luke Palmer <lrpal...@gmail.com>: > Adaptive programming is sortof the opposite of reactive programming, the way > I see it. Adaptive is imperative (that's the best word I have for it), i.e. > you have a bunch of variables and your code decides which one to change. > Whereas reactive programming, at the very heart (i.e. I would expect every > reactive semantics to obey this), is declarative. That is, the way > something behaves depends only on where it was defined, and not at all on > how it is used.
I'm not sure I agree with this analysis; Reactive can be implemented on top of Adaptive, and vice versa. Yes, adaptive sort-of about mutation, but if you take a time step as "some input variables updated", you can easily see how a Reactive event stream implements an adaptive computation. Similarily, Conal's implementation of Reactive is mostly about how futures interact; it's easy to see how futures can be implemented as Adaptive objects on top of input sources showing the current time and the other inputs to the system. In fact I think if you look at Magnus Carlsson's Haskell Adaptive package, I think you'll find that there isn't really much mention of mutation at all, except at the point of "update the inputs and tell me what output I get". This is much the same as Reactive where some underlying system is updating the inputs (mouse position, keyboard events, etc.) and giving you the new output. -- ryan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
