A little of coordination for Rosettacode

[Jos van Uden]

On 16-2-2013 18:23, bearophile wrote:
> The version you have put in Rosettacode is good, I have just added some missing tests at the beginning
>  of the UTM constructor.

I added that precondition reluctantly, that's why its short :-). I really feel that
input validation should be done elsewhere.

I was thinking about adding a factory method to the UTM that accepts a string array,
parses and validates it, and returns a fully initialized immutable TuringMachine.
It would still be a lot of ugly code though.

That stronger typing can reduce the need for input checking is something I find
interesting. I'll have a look at the Ada code.
  
> (but we have also to benchmark if this doesn't decrease the program performance for a
>  successive bigger Busy Beaver machine):

On the other hand, if we have stronger typing we may not have to do the rather expensive
checks that are currently in the loop.