Author: Albert Bertilsson
Date: 05:42:38 07/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2003 at 07:45:44, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 03, 2003 at 07:16:38, Albert Bertilsson wrote: > >>On July 03, 2003 at 03:35:32, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I think that the fact that most programs have only one author is a disadvantage. >>> >>>I believe that programmers could progress significantly faster if the program >>>was designed by 2 persons when one person decide about the data structure of the >>>program and the algorithm and the second person implement it without bugs. >>> >>>The problem of a lot of chess programs is bugs and part of the bugs are bugs >>>that the authors even do not know about them. >>> >>>I think that a person that his talent is not finding good ideas but implementing >>>ideas without bugs may be productive for a lot of programmers. >>> >>>I wonder if there is a team of 2 programmers in chess when the job of one >>>of them is not to suggest data structure and algorithms but only to write the >>>program with no bugs based on a given data structure and algorithms that are >>>given by the second person in the team. >> >>I don't know of any engine developed in this way, I think that the implementing >>programmer would get tired pretty soon, if not paid for his services. > >My idea was that the 2 programmer may be a team to develop a commercial engine. > That puts it in an entierly diffrent perspective, because it rules out the problems of "boring" and losing interest. >> >>I think that doing this type of project with more than one programmer is >>difficult for the following reasons: >> >>1. It's very time consuming, and doing it on spare time will mean that sometimes >>one programmer has no time, and the other programmers have to work without him >>for perhaps a year. >> >>2. It requires diversity, if both programmers are interested in developing the >>search, they will be in conflict on doing the "fun" stuff, and both have to >>divide the "boring" stuff between them. > >No > >If both programmers have the same skill in the "boring" stuff then it is a bad >idea. >The idea was that one of the programmers has big releative advantage in doing >the boring stuff so s(he) can do it clearly faster. > I guess your consept has some strengths, although the team members would all have to be skilled chess programmers to communicate their ideas and understand each other. I don't think a 1:1 ration would be good, due to the time it would take to implement the design, at least 2 programmers would be needed to keep up with the designer. I don't think it would be easy to find programmers with a big relative advantage in doing boring or easier stuff, since the designer must be a highly skilled programmer to make a good design. The bid advantage would probably be that the designer can focus more consistently on the design without being troubled with implementing/debugging/testing. There is one more great advantage, not having to implement the design himself, the design don't have to worry as much about how hard the design is to implement, that's the job of the programmer. This could lead to some new ideas being tried out and implemented, but could also lead to a very long development time. /Albert >Uri
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.