Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:44:35 02/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2004 at 09:05:39, Russell Reagan wrote: >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. When not referring to API, you have no idea what you talk about. 10%. Make that 100% to start with. > >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.