>> Pah. Mutable state is evil! ;-)
> 
> You have to change the state of the objects somehow....

Do not try to change the state of the objects. Instead only try to 
realise the truth: there is no state. Then you will see that it is not 
the *state* that changes, it is only *yourself*. ;-)

>> Very, very slowly. Like, I'm having trouble making it so that I can add
>> and remove wires and stuff efficiently and still be able to look up what
>> connects to what efficiently and...
> 
> My progress isn't as quick (or as clean) as I would like, but yeah... I 
> had similar challenges. Quadtrees help if you're looking for something 
> at a particular location, btw ;)

Oh hell, I haven't even got that far. When the inputs to a gate change, 
and its output changes, it has to notify everything connected to its 
output. But to do that, you have to be able to somehow look up what it's 
connected to... and be able to change it later... and check that you 
don't have outputs connected to other outputs... and...

>> (See my post about "highly redundant data structures.)
> 
> I'll have a look at this...

There's really nothing to see. I just meant that that's what my comment 
is about. ;-) Because I want to look up information five different ways, 
it's in five different indexes, all of which need to agree with each 
other...

>> You, by comparison, have got something that *runs*. I'm still faffing
>> around with design choices.
> 
> You're coding it in Haskell, aren't you?

You trying to imply there's a causality relationship there? :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message