Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 08:18:56 08/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2004 at 10:59:33, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On August 12, 2004 at 06:17:17, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On August 11, 2004 at 18:38:38, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>Then, we have C++, which tries to make a high level language out of a low level >>>language. Guess what? it _doesn't work_. It is an exercise in stupidity. >>>There are two ways to write C++: you can write it as C with a few nice syntax >>>features to clean up your code, or you can (as you are evidently advocating) >>>write it as an attempted high level language. The only problem with this is that >>>you will fail miserably, because you still have to do your own memory >>>management, etc. So you end up with the same development time as C and the same >>>speed as a high level language. >> >>Very well said. This is almost exactly how I feel about C++ myself. >> >>Tord > >I'm not quite sure I understand you two here. Is the focus still on developing a >chess engine, or software development in general? It sounds to me, that you two >are basically saying that C++ is more or less a failure. If that's your opinion, >that's ok with me. (although I don't agree) Just wanted to clarify things. > >Sargon I think I made my opinion pretty clear in the paragraph Tord quoted. C++ (when used as Bo Person's book is advocating) gives you all the penalties and performance hits of a high level language, without any of the corresponding benefits. If you want to use C++ as C with nicer syntax, then more power to you (and Zappa will probably make that switch soon). anthony
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.