Jan Kwakkel

> Partly agree. At first I thought we should move it to the mesa or mesa.utils namespace and make it generally available. But its nice that it only counts agents....

I ran a quick performance test on just 1000 agents, UUID vs. itertools.count I just don't see the need for UUID in this context, and it comes with a real...

@EwoutH, you might want to check #2260. This is how I would go about solving the issue. I don't have any existing tests failing, while unique_id counting is done inside...

closing as solved via #2260

I'll try to look at the code later today, but just some quick first questions/thoughts/concerns. 1. Do we want to maintain the distinction between step and time? Is this distinction...

> In my opinion, a model should be runnable without too many additional fluff. A simulator or scheduler should not be required for a simple ABM Fair enough, but then...

> Maybe the experimental ABMSimulator is redundant with this PR, and we only need to keep the DEVSSimulator No, `ABMSimulator` supports event scheduling while also having fixed time advancement (i.e.,...

I have been thinking about this PR a bit more. I think having an automatic counter for the number of times `model.step` is called is useful. However, I would keep...

> Time is the intermediate variant. You can adjust it, conditionally skip it or increase it, let it depend on model or agent variables. It offers a bit of flexibility...

> You can do cute stuff like conditionally modifying your time resolution, to perform more ticks at certain moments: That's not cute stuff, but bad modeling. It breaks discrete time...