To me, computer go programming means basic research for now, as I don't
believe the existing algorithms get you very far (I may be too
ambitious, but I cant help it..).
Thus, I would program in a way that let's me explore everything very
fast, without caring too much about performance. This is why I' using
Common Lisp.
If I'd be happy with the status of the research as it is, trying to get
as much out of it as possible for tournament programs, I would go
Chrilly's way and use C, assembler or my own special chip (if I could
afford it or knew some nice sheik =)
Just my 2 cents,
Ben
Don Dailey wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 19:30 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
The object pooling is the only thing I'd rather do without. But for
speed that's not possible, unfortunately. However it hardly affects
cleanliness or readability as there's not such a big difference
between a constructor call and a factory call. It does add some
extra
code, that's true. However, that's the same for any language, also
low-level ones like C or assembler. I don't see the logic why you
can't do in Java something that performance gurus do in C. Just
because it's Java? Because it makes sense?
No, for me it's the total time/effort trade-off for a given level of
performance.
If I program in C, it will take a little longer to write the code, but
it will run significantly faster even if I don't do any special
optimizations.
If I program in Java and claim it is to save time, but then I spend a
significant amount of time trying to make it go fast, I have spend MORE
time than I did in C, and it's not as fast. Not a reasonable
trade-off.
I agree that you can do some reasonable optimizations and still have
readable code. But avoiding object creation doesn't seem to me like a
natural way to use an object oriented language.
But my main point is that if you claim to use Java to save yourself
time, but you expect to have to do a significant amount of
optimizations to be happy, then why bother? Just program in C and
don't do any optimizations and be faster with less time invested.
I think that's enough for me. I'm not going to post any more on this
subject because it's starting to seem stupid going back and forth on
this.
- Don
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
