Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:9196 gnu.g++:1075
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!cs.ed.ac.uk!sam
From: sam@cs.ed.ac.uk (S. Manoharan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,gnu.g++
Subject: Re: discrete-event simulation in C++
Message-ID: <240@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Aug 90 15:00:23 GMT
References: <2533@ryn.esg.dec.com> <5845@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: nnews@cs.ed.ac.uk
Reply-To: sam@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (S. Manoharan)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science University of Edinburgh
Lines: 35

In article <5845@castle.ed.ac.uk> ecsv38@castle.ed.ac.uk (S Manoharan) I wrote:
>
>But, could someone tell me how event-based simulations compare
>with process-based simulations with respect to:
>   1. Ease of development
>   2. Code updatability and maintainability
>   3. Code size
>   4. .....
>

I just found a reference which suggests the better-ness of process-based
simulations over others:
@article{Birt85,
   author = "Graham Birtwistle and Greg Lomow and Brian Unger and Paul Lucker",
   year =	"May 1985",
   journal =	"Trans. of the society for computer simulation",
   number =	"1",
   pages =	"27-56",
   title =	"Process Style Packages for Discrete Event Modelling: Experience from the transaction, activity and event approaches",
   volume =	"2"
}

In case someone's interested.

Manoharan.

Ps - Those who wanted the class library, please hold on for a few days.
I will mail it soon.


--
S. Manoharan               Janet: sam@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
Dept of Computer Science   Uucp : ..!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!lfcs!sam 
University of Edinburgh    Arpa : sam%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ    UK.   Voice: 667 8323(home) 667 1081x2708(office)