Bob wrote:
We tend to focus on this or that enhanced feature in a piece of code. It's fun to talk about. That's not what keeps most designs from doing what they should. By focusing on this rather than the testing required, we set people up to fail. If you start off the project believing you mostly need fancy code when you mostly need long term testing instead, you hit a wall pretty fast. Setting up for one is not at all the same as setting up for the other.
Not really sure what this has to do with my post to which you replied?? I assure you, I do not find code to be a fun, or even very interesting, topic of conversation, and I did not mention it at all in that post. Really, the only thing I've said about code is that I've found it takes more than 100 lines to do a proper ADPLL. When I have some time, I have to sit down and study Poul-Henning's code to see what I can learn from it about parsimony.
Best regards, Charles _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
