Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:29:32 07/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2003 at 08:42:38, Albert Bertilsson wrote: >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. It is dependent on the skill of the programmers in this task. I think that a company can decide about a test for all people who want the job of implementer. a possible test may be for example to give programmer the data structure of my program,explanation of the meaning of every varaible and the job of every function that is used in the move generator(some functions are for incremental update of attack tables) and to give them the job of filling the missing parts. I believe that there is going to be a big gap between the best programmers and the average programmer in time that they need to implement perft in these conditions without bugs. > >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. I disagree. The fact that somebody has good ideas for choosing the data structure and the functions of a program does not mean that he is also relatively strong in the task of implementing them with no bugs. 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.