Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 01:10:10 08/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2000 at 14:38:04, Severi Salminen wrote: >Hi! > >Well, I have to say that yes, my assembly chess program played some chess (maybe >at 1200 ELO...), but it was indeed hard to write and debug. Now I'm asking how >does OOP (object oriented programming) suit for chess programming? Or should I >forget the C++ standard and stick to the plain old C? Are there any efficiency >aspects involved? I'm asking this because I'm quite new to OOP and would like to >start studying it only if it benefits chess programming somehow. I'll be using >the free Borland C++ 5.5 > >Thanks for any advice! > >Severi - Don't use the Borland C++ 5.5 compiler. If you need free, get some version of gcc 2.95.2. - Exception handling and RTTI are not quick, so minimize their use in (non-debug) frequently executing code. - Virtual dispatch is not less efficient than a big switch statement. - Not everything should be represented by a class. - Using templates where useful will lead to speedup vs. a C implementation of the same. Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.