Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 22:34:59 11/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2001 at 03:41:57, Kevin Stafford wrote: >>A language is arguably not its implementation. I'm sure somebody could write an >>interpreter for C--does that mean that interpreted C is a different language >>than compiled C? >> >>-Tom > >Java is generally associated with its implementation. If you asked "is Java a >good language to write a chess engine in?" on this board I'm willing to bet the Hmm, yes, I see your point. An unfortunate side-effect of Sun's naming scheme... >majorities response would say that no, it is not, due to the fact that it is >interpreted at runtime, and therefore slow. The actual syntax of the language >would recieve little attention. The C# syntax is extremely close to that of >Java's. The main difference is in the implementation. I suppose you could argue >that the languages are both Java, but I think the summation of the syntax, No, C# is somewhat similar to Java, but they are not the same, syntactically or otherwise. To elaborate more on my opinion of C#, its list of [presumed] benefits does not correlate well to what chess engines do. For example, chess programmers do not muck with dynamically allocated memory because the performance penalty would be huge, so C#'s (and Java's) ability to do automatic garbage collection is completely worthless. Also, chess engines are not well suited to an object-oriented organization, so all of C#'s OO crap like properties isn't doing chess programmers any favors either. -Tom
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.