Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 04:29:58 08/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 1998 at 18:07:47, Pat King wrote: >>If you knew about C or C++, you would realize that they're not exactly different >>languages. >I do. They share a lot of syntax, but they're used a lot differently Sharing syntax is a bit of an understatement, considering C++ is a superset of C. >>As for writing an object oriented chess program, good luck getting it running >>nearly as fast as a program written in C or assembly. >One can come close with the right design, and in my experience, it's a lot >easier to tinker with without breaking. Of course my first couple of OO chess >programs CRAWLED, mostly because I tried to make EVERYTHING an object. So is it safe to say that speed increases as you approach a non-object-oriented state? >Actually, I was surprised at the amount of Pascal code out there, more than I >thought there was. True, the majority's in C, but if I just wanted to cut and >paste, then I could be happy with my Crafty source. I think there's more to be >learned taking a "clean room" approach as much as possible, using whatever tools >are at hand as effectively as possible. The only exame of Pascal chess source code I can think of is CHESS 0.5, published in 1978. Compare this to GNU Chess, Crafty, TSCP, etc. Taking the "clean room" approach to some things may be good, but with computer chess, I think "not reinventing the wheel" approach is appropriate. 50 years of progress shouldn't be ignored. Cheers, 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.