Author: Tom Likens
Date: 07:45:28 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 05:38:50, David Rasmussen wrote: >The concept of object oriented _design_ (which is really the issue here), is not >trivial, and your questions cannot be answered in a general way. One will have >to gain experience with OOD and then apply it to the actual problem at hand >_and_ to the actual language used. OOP in C++ and OOP in Smalltalk are two very >different things. > >That said, OOP in itself doesn't lead to slower or faster programs than any >other design methodology. It depends on how good a designer and programmer you >are. Specifically and practically, OOD and OOP can be applied to chess engine >programming in C++ with great results. That is, you can have the benefit of a >much cleaner design with the speed of C or better. > >Also, remember that C++ (if that is what you do) is not an OO language, it is a >multiparadigm language. Everything shouldn't be an object just for sake of >whatever. C++'s advantages over C is not only in the _support_ (not the demand) >of OO, but also in it's much improved type safety, it's generic programming >possibilities, in general it's template meta programming possibilities (which >have allowed development of scientific libraries that beats Fortran at it's own >turf) etc. > >/David This is a good point. You can derive a lot of the benefits of C++ by just using it as a better C. Having access to the STL is almost alone, worth the cost of admission. regards, --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.