>> I seem to be in the opposite mode from Mr. Fish.
>
> How so, exactly?
>
I thought that was clear. I'm still having fun with coding my solver.
You are on to writing about what is high quality software. We've
each been in the other's place and "done that."
>> I'm still having fun
>> writing the "last" version of my solver, and taking my time doing so, I
>> have to add.
>
> That's "latest" not "last". I should note that I had fun writing my solver
> too, but now lost interest to other projects. I may return to it in the
> future.
>
No. I intentionally put "last" in quotes rather than say the obvious.
> In any case, there are many more parameters for being "industrial-strength"
> than speed as I've shown in the essay. Personally as a hard-core UNIX
> developer, I have a hard time calling a standalone (non-library) Freecell
> solver written in 8086 and DOS Assembly "industrial strength". But maybe
> that's just me.[1]
>
My belief is that "industrial strength" can come in many flavors. The design,
coding, and robustness of the deliverable is what counts, regardless of the
hardware, software environment, or implementation tools. But maybe that's
just me.
Received on Sun May 04 2008 - 17:07:39 IDT