I found this quote a while ago while researching state machines. The author is using a moderately complex hypothetical system as a reason not to use a state machine.
“... For instance, you are asked to create an online order system. To do that you need to think about all the possible states of the system, such as how it behaves when a customer places an order, what happens if it is not found on stock or if the customer decides to change or delete the chosen item. The number of such states could reach 100 or more.”
This is why so much software is broken. The author just admitted that he can’t be bothered figuring out how the system he’s about to build should actually work. That’s a deeply strange mindset to me.
Well, state explosion is a real thing, which is why we have things like hierarchical state machines. There's almost always a trade off between capturing everything in a state variable and allowing a few flags and conditionals. The classic example is a keyboard state machine where you don't actually have states for each key pressed, you just store the key in a variable.
“... For instance, you are asked to create an online order system. To do that you need to think about all the possible states of the system, such as how it behaves when a customer places an order, what happens if it is not found on stock or if the customer decides to change or delete the chosen item. The number of such states could reach 100 or more.”
This is why so much software is broken. The author just admitted that he can’t be bothered figuring out how the system he’s about to build should actually work. That’s a deeply strange mindset to me.