Author: Gareth McCaughan
Date: 17:40:12 12/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2001 at 18:21:11, Dann Corbit wrote: > 3. You can knock off a chess program faster in some other languages perhaps, > but it will be slow. I think you might be surprised at the speed you can get out of some of the less-popular languages. > I think that perhaps the "academic" languages like Lisp or Snoball might be > interesting to play with ideas, since the engine is much more abstracted. (Do you mean SNOBOL? I don't think there are many serious SNOBOL fans left these days; in this respect it's different from (e.g.) OCaml or Smalltalk.) A brief digression on Lisp... The original LISP was certainly an "academic language", but then *everything* was academic then. Nowadays, there are many Lisps around, and it would be a mistake to call them all "academic". There's Scheme, used almost exclusively for teaching and designed with spartan simplicity as an overriding principle. *Very* academic. There are things like Emacs Lisp and Autolisp, designed for embedding into particular applications; usually they're pretty lousy languages, but their lousiness is of a very un-academic kind. And there's Common Lisp, which is (in my opinion) an excellent language but again very un-academic. -- g
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.