Author: Charles L. Williams
Date: 10:16:14 06/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 1999 at 10:31:58, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: >On June 22, 1999 at 12:24:42, Jesus de la Villa wrote: > >> >>Hi, >> >>"C" ofcourse, because it is fast, transportability, and ad hoc for chess >>programing, very good bit manage. >> >>Pascal if you are not the best programer in the world. >> >>Make an effort, don't think in basic. >> >>Thanks. > >Why "of course"? This is rather insulting to Basic I think, and typical of >C-zombies who cannot see any merit in languages they do not know. The top Basic >compilers today are not the interpreters of 20 years ago as you seem to think, >but I doubt you have any experience of them because of your obvious prejudice >against the language. The best Basic compilers actually generate slightly >*faster* code than C (and a lot faster than C++) today, and offer all the bit >operations and inline assembly tools mentioned elsewhere in this thread. The >*only* advantages that C has are its portability and the amount of example >source code to be found - in terms of performance, C is a *second* choice, only >waranted if you need the portability or if you do not feel comfortable with >anything offering better performance. > >Regards, >Roberto What Basic compilers offer better performance? If there are some that can turn out a better executable, please let us know what they are. Chuck
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.