Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 12:21:57 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 08:27:52, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>/David > >This completely misses what Matt was talking about: OOP (not C++!). > I was aware that he was talking about OOP in general and not C++. But I don't see how it misses the subject completely, as C++ is an _example_ of a language that supports OOP. If something is true for OOP in C++, it is true for OOP in general. That doesn't mean that languages and implementations can't exist that support OOP, and that are not suited for chess programming. /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.