Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 15:41:56 12/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2002 at 18:17:29, Sune Fischer wrote: >but I guess that's just me being a newbie, again ;) > Yes :) >>When I directed you to comp.lang.c++, it was not because I thought you were >>off-topic (I started the Two Towers thread :), but because I thought you would >>get better help there. CCC is good for chess programming questions, but the >>level of language knowledge isn't especially high in here. > >But there is a good balance here between speed and style, many post assembler >code and such. I have tried a few questions in c.l.c++ and I always think the >thread turns into something else, like "you shouldn't be inlining because that >is bad style" or something to that effect. >Try telling them you have a goto in a function and you will get flamed by 15 >angry posters telling you that is crap code! ;-) > They'd be right to do so :) I think design and algorithmic enhancements is far more important than pure speed, even in a speed intensive field as chess programming. That is not to say that speed is unimportant. Just that many people here seem to think that having a poor and flat design and only simple solutions all along is the only way to retain speed. It isn't. You can make a great design and retain (or even gain) raw speed. Also, algorithmic enhancements are far more likely to happen and will be easier and less error prone to implement, if your design is good. The goal isn't the fastest program. The goal is a program that is fast enough without sacrificing design. There is no need for gotos and stuff like that. And inlining is not bad design at all. /David
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.