Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 06:05:39 02/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 15:15:16, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >What Bob is saying (and I agree with this 100%) is that what you can do with a >low level language is by definition a superset of what you can do with a high >level language (given sufficient time/money/motivation). Like Tord said, in theory, not in practice. >Chess engines are usually small enough projects that it is possible to do >everything in C. >But I think that a lot of programs (web browsers, word processors, etc) simply >don't need to be fast and _should_ be written in a high level language. Sadly >it is looking like that language will be C#, rather than ML or Lisp. Why do you still assume higher level means slower? It doesn't have to mean that, if you take care with what you're doing. C# isn't so bad. It looks pretty good to me. My experience with it is that if you aren't careless the slowdown will be less than 10%, and sometimes even faster than it's native C/C++ counterpart. There is this huge mass of C/C++ programmers out there who have very limited exposure to ML or Lisp, so C# is more likely to catch on. Even the name gives the C/C++ programmer the impression that it might be similar to what they already know, and whether that's true or not, it doesn't matter. They're more likely to give it a try and like it.
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.