Author: Frank Schneider
Date: 14:34:43 02/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1998 at 11:42:11, Greg Manning wrote: >Frank, > >I agree that "Interoperability between components" >would be great for computer-chess users and reuse of >design and code would be nice for chess programmers. > >At this point in history, it seems to me that using >CORBA/IDL is a bit over-ambitious. I agree that using CORBA would be ambitious at the moment. However, defining interfaces takes some time and distributed object technology (CORBA or DCOM) will become more commonly used until interfaces are ready. >A more modest goal would be >a standard C/C++ API to chess engines and one free UI in Java. If you define IDL-interfaces you still could publish the (generated) C++-interfaces and use them as a C/C++-API without the drawback of beeing C++-specific. >aside: is interoperability in the interest of commercial developers? Interesting question. My opinion was that they might be interesting for commercial developers, but Matthias Wuellenweber disagreed. I believe that there are components that will be better if developed by commercial vendors (GUI, multimedia-things). I'm not sure if the average user is likely to pay $100 for the best commercial engine, when there are lots of free engines that are strong enought (think about hardware in 2008). If a vendor offers a nice GUI its value increases with the number of engines available (see Fritz). Frank
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.