[computer-go] language choices

[Benjamin Teuber]

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 at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
>