Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 10:48:17 01/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2004 at 13:22:45, Tord Romstad wrote: >On January 06, 2004 at 11:03:06, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On January 06, 2004 at 10:40:57, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On January 06, 2004 at 06:53:39, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: [...] >When designing a protocol, you shouldn't think only about your own goals. >The protocol is for the community, not just for you. That there is something >similar to DLLs in Linux (I assume you are right about that, though I don't >even know what a DLL is) is not good enough. I want to use exactly the >same code to compile my engine in MacOS, Linux and Windows. I am talking on my needs, so can you. Simply make a better and more acceptable proposal, it would be welcomed to be disussed. >Thanks to the fact that both of the two wide-spread protocols use console >IO, it is unimportant that Linux does not work on your hardware. You could >still easily port your engine to Linux, by simply borrowing somebody's Linux >box and recompiling your sources. My own situation is precisely a mirror >image of yours: We have no Windows machines around here, only Macs and Linux >machines. I haven't used a Windows machine since the days of Windows 3.0, >and am therefore almost 100% Windows-illiterate. But despite this, thanks >to the wise choices of Tim Mann and Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, my engine now >runs on Windows machines. Porting it was simply a matter of copying >my source code to a Windows machine and typing 'make' from the command >line. If it were just marginally more complicated, it would never have >happened. I do not understand, what your problem is. If you are satisfied with existing protocols, nobody want to take it away from you. But I see a need for a more modern protocol supporting also 10x8 boards, exotic chess pieces and a unic encoding of moves, not like Winboard is doing it with castlings. >>COM moreover allows to specify events with the interface. That is, what makes >>that solution "modern". But may be, that somebody has a wonderful and better >>approach for a modern protocol. I would like to read from that then. >What is wrong with using console IO for the protocol? I cannot see any >disadvantages at all. It is portable, it works well over the network, and >it makes it trivial to port an engine to a new OS without having to >learn how the OS works. In particular for non-technical people like >myself, it is extremely convenient. I don't have the time nor desire >to learn any programming beyond basic console IO functions, especially >not for a foreign OS. As I have told: if you are satisfied with them - fine! I am not. I really do not understand, what the goal of your posting could be. Are you thinking, that someone will take something away from you? I am still wondering. Regards, Reinhard.
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.