Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!kepler1!rjfrey
From: rjfrey@kepler.com (Robert J Frey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: discrete-event simulation in C++
Message-ID: <413@kepler1.kepler.com>
Date: 23 Aug 90 16:02:38 GMT
References: <60862@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: rjfrey@kepler1.UUCP (Robert J Frey)
Organization: Kepler Financial Management, Ltd., Setauket, NY.
Lines: 24

In article <60862@lanl.gov> jwa@lanl.gov (Wayne Anderson) writes:
>Process oriented simulation seems to me to provide a somewhat more natural
>way of writing simulations.  However, there also seems to be an efficiency
>trade off (as compared to discrete-event simulation).
>

I'm aware that many people feel that way, of course, but for me whether I use
a discrete-event or process-oriented approach depends very much on the
problem at hand. For simulations of any size or complexity I find it most
convenient to move back and forth between representations, which is why I
prefer languages such as SIMSCRIPT or SLAM. 

I also believe very strongly that any serious simulation facility has to pro-
vide for both approaches.

A big problem with process-oriented approaches is extensibility; often I am
forced into an event-oriented representation because the process-oriented one
can't quite handle what I want. Because I often choose an event-oriented
representation, I want it available, but I want it to be my choice.
This is something OO techniques can go a long way towards solving.
-- 
Dr. Robert J Frey, Kepler Financial Management, Ltd.
rjfrey@kepler.com *or* frey@chaos.sunysb.edu
voice: (516) 689-6300 * fax: (516) 751-8678