Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: OOP - Not for computer chess?

Author: Matt Taylor

Date: 22:03:03 02/13/03

Go up one level in this thread

On February 14, 2003 at 00:07:50, Matthew Hull wrote:

>On February 13, 2003 at 23:21:57, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>Deep Junior is OOP
>
>If so then it is interesting.  I don't program OOP myself, so I was pretty much
>quoting the promise of OOP from a buisness perspective in which utility and
>economy of human resources were the selling points rather than performance.
>
>Matt

I debated performance a while back (a month or two ago I think) here with some
of the others. Object oriented code isn't necessarily that bad. (Java gives it a
bad rep because Java has notoriously bad performance.)

Another consideration is that you can write object oriented stuff in any
language -- even assembly if you really want to. I write object-oriented
libraries in C all the time. I find it distasteful to mix distinct segments of
the library together unless absolutely necessary.

-Matt

• Re: OOP - Not for computer chess? Dann Corbit 22:46:12 02/13/03
  • Re: OOP - Not for computer chess? Matt Taylor 00:03:46 02/14/03
    • Re: OOP - Not for computer chess? David Rasmussen 02:57:57 02/14/03
      • Re: OOP - Not for computer chess? Dave Gomboc 05:30:55 02/14/03
        • Re: OOP - Not for computer chess? David Rasmussen 12:22:44 02/14/03
          • Re: OOP - Not for computer chess? Dan Andersson 04:05:57 02/15/03

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.