Author: Jens Kahlenberg
Date: 06:57:17 07/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2003 at 09:29:32, Uri Blass wrote: >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 read somewhere below that your program has _lots_ of global variables. So probably nobody else than _you_ can pass the suggested test. A programmer trying to fill in the missing parts will _definitely_ fail. The answer of responsible programmers to your test should be: redesign before filling the missing parts. Regards, Jens > >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.