Topologies, not topographies.
On 11/12/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I have plenty of experience with C# and have a full UCT engine > built in it that works for arbitrary board topographies (standard, > cylindrical, toroidal, others could be easily added). And I agree, > writing/testing/debugging is very easy. I've never used Mono. > Perhaps I should also consider that route. I don't care about whether > the language is open or not as I am probably the only person who is > ever going to see this code. > > > On 11/12/07, Phil Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > I'm not a troll, I promise. I'm asking because I want to start a new > > > project. I already have a bunch of code in C++, but I've never > > > considered myself an expert. I think I'll cherry-pick from that and > > > convert to use smart pointers. Thanks for the help. > > > > Consider C# since you are already familiar with C++. Yes, it's not as fast > > as native C, but it's easier to develop in C# because of it's automatically > > memory management, gargage collection, generics, class libraries, etc. I'm > > pretty good at C/C++ but writing/testing/debuging in C# is several times > > faster. The trade-off between code speed and development time may be worth > > wild for you. It also meets all your requirements, including MPI and Linux > > (using the Mono). > > > > > > BTW. The type of optimization that Peter mentioned for Java is automatically > > in C#. > > > > Phil > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/
