Author: Pat King
Date: 13:10:31 03/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2002 at 06:08:22, Sune Fischer wrote: >On March 18, 2002 at 21:44:30, Dann Corbit wrote: [snip] >I thought of a complete redesign with a super piece class and sub classes for >each type, they could have their own MakeMove and RemovePiece which would save a>few conditionals here and there. But since 80% of the makemove is identical for >all the pieces, there would need to be a lot of identical code segments, which >is clearly prone to error. Why so? All that means is that the superclass does the moving 80% of the time, with the subclasses catching the exceptional cases. No identical code segments, just a careful encapsulation of common behaviour. That's how Zotron does it, and it works fine (not that Zotron doesn't have other problems). >I'm also afraid that with so many small functions being called, there would be a >noticable overhead. Less of a handle on this. I did some simple experiments to prove to myself that the fewer conditionals of OO code compensated for the increased number of function calls. This experiment was not a full up chess program, and the result is certainly compiler and platform dependent, but OO is not a pure loss on speed, and can be a win. Anyone aware of public/GPL/similar C++ profiler? >Maybe there is a better way to do it in C++? > >-S. Pat
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.