Path: csiph.com!news.redatomik.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded
Subject: Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs?
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 09:17:09 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <o7ab2k$fvs$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <o79gce$om1$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l8GMeTSkvbEpT5ZuvDQeHw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: csiph.com comp.arch.embedded:25778

> I think the best method to describe a machine behaviour is a
> state-machine, mainly a hierarchically state-machine (HSM). Do you agree?

FSM models are my #1 considered method for documenting required 
behavior.   But it's not always the best way.  Some requirements sets 
just don't lend themselves well to FSM diagrams.  I find that sometimes 
I'll sketch a FSM and then find out it's just too simple or too linear. 
ON the flip side, I've had project for which I'd have an extremely 
simple FSM documented and later it's starts to get elaborate and useful 
as new requirements emerge.

JJS