Author: Oliver Roese
Date: 03:53:37 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 Theoretically you can have anything in c++, what you have in c plus a lot more. I think c++ is a lot of fun and i would always try to use it. For example: -Operator overloading. -Function name overloading. -(Portable) inline functions. -static constants. -Templates. The downside is, that it is harder to learn. But a cool chessprogrammer can not fail on c++ or what? Oliver Roese
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.