On 15/11/2007, steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the more i think about it, the more i love whatever language
> i'm using for whatever project i'm working on. some projects
> would be (or are) horrifying to try to implement in some languages
> [the matlab->C example springs to mind], so,
Hi,
On Nov 20, 2007 3:03 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The logical (but worrying) conclusion I draw from that paragraph is
> that you would like to see a language with an intended application of
> go...
Why would that be a worrying conclusion?
regards,
Vlad
__
My 2 cents about languages.
C is the universal "assembly language". I don't think I've ever used a
computer family that didn't have a C compiler on it (after C was invented of
course). Often new languages, to get started, will just translate into C
code and then compile with the C compiler.
I'll try that with my Ruby GTP code. I'm assuming random moves until
no non-eye-filling moves are left and on a 9x9 board?
On Nov 20, 2007 9:58 AM, Chuck Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> My 2 cents about languages.
>
>
>
> C is the universal "assembly language". I don't think I've ev
Go-specific language? Sprinkle in a few Common Lisp macros, stir well ...
Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind
masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster
- Original Message
From: Vlad Dumitrescu <[EMAI
Hi,
I think the reason for Ruby being so much slower is because it is an
interpreted language rather than a compiled language. So when you run
the program, a Ruby interpreter has to translate the instructions to
machine code as they are running, instead of a compiled language like
C where this is
On 20/11/2007, Vlad Dumitrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Nov 20, 2007 3:03 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The logical (but worrying) conclusion I draw from that paragraph is
> > that you would like to see a language with an intended application of
> > go...
>
> Wh
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 04:41:19AM -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
> the more i think about it, the more i love whatever language
> i'm using for whatever project i'm working on. some projects
> would be (or are) horrifying to try to implement in some languages
> [the matlab->C example springs to mind
Java and C# are both compiled at some point if the same loop is running
repeatedly. Java is usually compiled "just in time" which is to say as each
function is first run. I'm not sure how C# is executed, but I think it gets
compiled before execution.
In theory, ruby and python could also be comp
Hello
I was waiting till someone restarts, but nobody seemed to notice.
CGOS was hanging yesterday morning (European time) with 3 games
4849..4851 where no black engine placed any stone.
If black restarted (one of the black bots was mine) it lost on time because
the 30 minutes had been used. Blac
"Colin Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the reason for Ruby being so much slower is because it is an
> interpreted language rather than a compiled language.
It's not the main problem (interpreted languages are slower than those
compiled to native code, but than even Java and C# are int
On Nov 20, 2007 1:55 PM, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PD I don't know who is in charge of CGOS, Don, Olivier or Jason.
> If this is not the right place to post CGOS incidents, tell us where.
Don - 9x9 CGOS, boardspace website
Olivier - 19x19 CGOS
Jason - sourceforge website
As
I was waiting till someone restarts, but nobody seemed to notice.
CGOS was hanging yesterday morning (European time) with 3 games
4849..4851 where no black engine placed any stone.
If black restarted (one of the black bots was mine) it lost on time because
the 30 minutes had been used. Black lost
On Nov 20, 2007 1:56 PM, Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 12:48 PM, Stefan Nobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Colin Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I think the reason for Ruby being so much slower is because it is an
> > > interpreted langua
On 20/11/2007, Colin Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 1:56 PM, Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 2007 12:48 PM, Stefan Nobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Colin Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I think the reason fo
> (I just joined this list last week, this is my first post)
Hi Colin, welcome to the group.
> I still find it easier and faster to code in Java (using Eclipse) than
> with C++. The OP mentioned that Java is slow, but I have actually
> read that in the recent years it has become comparably faste
This seems to be one condition that hangs CGOS.
At any rate, I finally restarted it. I was actually away from any
computers for almost a week. I notice that CGOS has been down for a
few days.Sorry about that.
It's back up and running now.
- Don
Christoph Birk wrote:
> I don't know
Ruby is a wonderful language, and just about my favorite. But it's
well known that it is one of the slower ones.
For an application like GO, with lots of logic, 300X doesn't surprise me.
- Don
Chuck Paulson wrote:
>
> My 2 cents about languages.
>
>
>
> C is the universal “assembly la
GoSharp Lite V1.0 is available
http://gosharp.myweb.hinet.net/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
There are possibilities like inline-perl, inline-ruby, critcl (inline
code for tcl) that are not too bad for mixing code.You can move back
and forth between C and a high level language fairly easily.
I've never tried using one of these (with inline stuff) for go.You
really want the core
Jacques,
I am responsible for 9x9 CGOS and I was away for almost a week. Sorry
about the inconvenience but it's now back up and running.
- Don
Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> Hello
>
> I was waiting till someone restarts, but nobody seemed to notice.
> CGOS was hanging yesterday morning (European t
Colin,
I would NOT recommend this site. It was last updated in '98. Many of
the optimizations listed were great for back then. They are terrible
for 2007 and will likely result in SLOWER execution, not faster.
For example, the claim is that a synchronized method call is 10 times
slower th
"Nick Apperson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Java and C# are both compiled at some point if the same loop is
At some point everything has to be translated to machine code. But
Java, C#, Ruby etc. are doing this at execution time -- that what most
people call a interpreter.
You are right, the in
23 matches
Mail list logo
