On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:48 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > Am I being too critical of languages? I cannot find anything that > beats C (other that perhaps assembly, and I did once write a chess > program using an assembler.)
I should clarify here. It's not the language that matters, but it's the language implementation. In principle ANY language could be compiled down to fast memory efficient native code with the right technology. But in practice you are probably never going to see a world champion chess program written in Tcl, Ruby or Befunge. A language I didn't mention (among many I am sure) is forth. I know there are some good commercial native code forth compilers but I don't know how good they are. I also don't know anything about how memory is handled, but I understand that forth is pretty much "take the bull by the horns" and the programmer has control of everything. So it could qualify as a currently available language implementation appropriate for writing a world class game playing programs in. Outside of implementation issues, I'm not commenting on how good or beautiful the language itself is. If I were, I would not be recommending C or even mentioning forth. - Don
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
