Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 17:07:56 07/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2003 at 18:41:19, Dan Andersson wrote: > Forth, Scheme or OCaml. Forth is an old love. I've been meaning to try OCaml for quite some time now. I hated scheme when I first had to use it for a CS class, and while it still isn't my favorite, it's grown on me :) > As for functional languages: > They are easy to work with, interactive. And functional languages are IMO fast >enough now. ML laguages are as fast as C or faster for may applictions. And the >type system and relative side effect free nature of them is appealing. I've always thought implementing things like a transposition table in a language like lisp would be awkward, difficult, or slow. Are functional languages really suited for many of the standard enhancements that you see in most game playing programs? > And it seems reasonably easy to add Partially Ordered Sets in them. POS is one >of the key issues in my current chess/game algorithm thinking. Could you explain partially ordered sets in layman's terms? I searched around for stuff on them, but from all of the set theory notation (which I'm not too fond of) I can't see how they differ from a plain old ordered set. Maybe an example using computer chess? I suspect you'd use this for move ordering?
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.