[computer-go] language choices

[Eduardo Sabbatella]

Give me a program that beats a dan level taking less
than a week to process.

I will code it in assembler if necesary to make it
efficient for a competition. (parallel if necesary)

The first part difficult.
The second one is just engineering.

20 minutes or 20 hours is the same in this problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory


Last email about java/a/b/c/c++/c#/d.




--- Benjamin Teuber <benjamin.teuber at web.de> escribió:

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


__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! 
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar