Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 08:59:22 11/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
I hear both sides. When I started grad school in 1972 I gained access to a teletype machine hooked into the campus mainframe. You could enter a program in BASIC, type run, and get instant answers. No more card decks and waiting several hours wondering if your program was going to crash. The teletype machine even had a paper tape that allowed you to save and reload your program. Not a lot faster than typing it in from scratch, but less error prone. With such awesome computing facilities at my disposal I decided it would be fun to write a chess program. With no forethought whatsoever I began: 10 DIMENSION B(8, 8) "There, I've got a board". Needless to say, I didn't go far before I realized that some planning and design would be necessary if the program was ever going to actually play. I put the program aside and worked out an outline for what various parts should do. When I returned to the program I was forced to throw away a fair amount of code. Over the years I've developed my "style". I do a little planning - what the program should look like at the top - and I begin coding the pieces at the bottom. The plan grows down and the code grows up. If I plan too much I end up throwing away plans as unexpected things surface as I code. If I code too much I end up throwing away code for lack of a plan. I don't claim what I do is best, but I'm comfortable with it and I know it works for me. Plus I'm too old to change. It sounds like Daniel is proceeding in the manner that suits his style. His style may also not be the best, but I believe it will work and he will succeed. I think he deserves a little more encouragement and a little less "that's a recipe for disaster". Good luck to you Daniel. Dan H.
This page took 0.01 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.