Author: José Carlos
Date: 10:38:56 11/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2002 at 13:31:59, David Rasmussen wrote: >On November 16, 2002 at 12:01:01, José Carlos wrote: > >> >> Most (if not all) C++ copilers are also C compilers. Visual C++ is. > >C is (with disregard to a few extreme cases) a subset of C++, so all C++ >compilers are C compilers. As I don't know _all_ C++ compilers, _I_ can't say _all_. >> What languaje to choose is a matter of personal preference, because both are >>equally good for chess programming. > >I disagree. Why? >> C is conceptually easier to learn. > >I disagree. Why? >>With C++ you can write conceptually more >>complex programs with less complexity for you. Chess is simple enough >>for making C++ conceptual advantage not important. > >I disagree wildly. > >Chess programs are complex enough that their design matters in the long run. At >one time or another, most chess programmers do a rewrite because their design >has gotten too messy, and they have to many undiscovered bugs. C++ is vastly >superior in this regard. I disagree. >It takes time to become a good C++ programmer. But it takes even longer >to become a good C programmer. I disagree. >On the other hand, C++ let's a beginner create much more, faster. In the very beginning, yes. After some time things get even. And to take advantage of of the potential C++ has, takes a loooong time. >If you want to learn C++, I suggest you buy the brilliant book "Accelerated >C++", by far the best C++ beginner and intermediate book in existence. And it's >modern and up-to-date both in content and in teaching methods. > >/David Thanks David. I didn't know C++, I'd buy that book. José C.
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.