Hi Tony,<br><br>Reactive so far has focused mainly on events and functions of time (behaviors/signals), while Yampa on transformations between signals. I'm in the process of building a higher-level interface with some semantic similarity to the arrow/Yampa style. See recent posts at <a href="http://conal.net/blog">http://conal.net/blog</a> to get some flavor of where I'm going. The post "Why classic FRP does not fit interactive behavior" in particular mentions part of my motivation for doing something different from both classic FRP and Yampa.<br>
<br> - Conal<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/12/16 Tony Hannan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tonyhannan2@gmail.com">tonyhannan2@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello,<br><br>Can someone describe the advantages and disadvantages of the Yampa library versus the Reactive library for functional reactive programming, or point me to a link.<br><br>Thanks,<br><font color="#888888">Tony<br>
</font><br>P.S. It is hard to google for Yampa and Reactive together because "reactive" as in "function reactive programming" always appears with Yampa<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>