On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:10:34 -0500, Neil Van Dyke <[email protected]> wrote:
>Once you get beyond parsing real-world protocol binary formats, the >other aspects of protocols get more complicated, and I think you'll >often need a general-purpose (or at least Turing-complete) language. Most real-world communication protocols can be implemented using [relatively] simple state machines. There is no question that a GPL may be needed to handle the content of "messages", but the actual processing to implement the protocol rarely *requires* that kind of power. Obviously, the choice of language affects ease of implementation. YMMV. >However, for a particular protocol, or class of protocols you identify, >you might be able to come up with a DSL that expresses everything, and >which is easier to verify. You might also have a DSL layer that almost >exactly matches the formal specification for the protocol (though it's >usually not that easy, and specs usually get fuzzy on important details). A generic state machine generator / combinator might be a useful starting point. Is there anything like that available for Racket? George -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/13r3ac17r6ma80q4arttpp0olac4khscm3%404ax.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
