Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: What will be the position of Windows in 3, 4 years in the future?

Author: leonid

Date: 19:22:43 11/29/99

Go up one level in this thread


On November 29, 1999 at 21:06:22, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On November 29, 1999 at 20:10:52, leonid wrote:
>>On November 29, 1999 at 19:17:04, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>On November 29, 1999 at 18:55:52, leonid wrote:
>>>>Hi!
>>>>
>>>>What will the position of Windows in three or four years from now?
>>>Nobody knows.  Prognosticators are not very good at it.  I once went to a
>>>meeting where Microsoft officials said that "OS/2 is the wave of the future --
>>>all your design efforts should be bent in that direction."
>>
>>Your remembering of OS/2 is more that right. This is mainly thinking about the
>>OS/2 dismay that I am so hesitant about choice of system. Do we still have OS/2
>>in this World?
>Sure, as long as that world is colored blue.
>
>>Start writing the complet game, that could take few years, and finish it for
>>system that is already not there is not big fun. But to be sincere, I dream that
>>Linux will become robust and omnipresent for all of us.
>
>Because operating systems are transient vapors [anybody here using a 15 year old
>version of an operating system?], why not keep the core of your engine ANSI C or
>C++?  Then, any OS specific parts like GUI or system services can be kept in
>separate translation units and use a specified interface.  In that way, any
>rewrite you have to do will be fairly trivial.
>For instance, consider Crafty.  There is basically very little OS specific code
>in the crafty engine.  Those bits that must be contained there are surrounded by
>#ifdefs.  The engine is a separate system, which is also written in a fairly
>portable manner (as evidenced by the simple switch from x-windows to Win32).  So
>by following techniques like those demonstrated by Tim Mann and Robery Hyatt,
>you can write a chess program and/or OS specific parts in a way that remains
>portable and flexible.
>
>[snip]

Writing chess game is not that much about make it workable, as make it the most
speedy. C and other languages are very attractive because of their protability
but they fail in producing the quick logic. Also I am too addicted to Assembler.
I like this language and will hardly ever change my mind. After all, it is not
that difficult to write on Assembler as averybody try to say. Very often only
some artificial obstacles are there, such as luck of documentation. Take for
instance Windows. All its low level code is high secret. I am just amazed how
Windows is still alive when the OS/2, because it was not an open system, is
already dead. Maybe with Windows it is only the question of time. Maybe superior
marketing skill of Microsoft make this invitable end look like a comfortable
aging process, when the end as such is certain. Who knows!

Leonid.



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.