I thinks it's very difficult to outperform C since C really is just
about at the level of assembly language.
No, in special cases it's not that hard to outperform C, because the
language spec dictates some not so efficient details. C has an ABI and
it's specification is optimized for the
Look,
I love C++ and I'd love to say look I told you all, C++ is the fastest,
but frankly it just doesn't work like that. When we come to a point where
every programmer writes the fastest possible code their language could
create then we have some kind of a comparison.
C++ has a philosophy
On 14/12/2007, Nick Apperson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C++ is faster than C because the STL (and other generic code) allows the
programmer to spend their precious time optimizing the bottleneck and using
a very fast default for less critical places. For a sufficiently small
program however I
Due to electricity shutdowns in our university, I will wait a few
consecutive hours
with constant electricity before starting the 19x19 cgos server again.
Sorry for that. Be sure I am in bigger trouble
than you with these electricity shutdowns :-)
Olivier
Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefan, judging by this site (which I posted some links from
yesterday) your intuition is correct:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
To clarify: I don't really like these non-scientific benchmarks (in
many cases I assume no one or only really few
Stefan,
Yes, in special cases you can outperform C.
I don't claim that it might not be possible with better compiler
technology to outperform C. I'm keeping my eye on D because it
promises to be one of those languages.
But the truth of the matter, despite the promises, C is the best
By the way, I am no fan of C. I don't like C and have tried some of
the languages on your list of languages that are supposedly faster than
C.
I think you must be getting your information from the web pages for
those languages. As a general rule any reasonably fast language is
going to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], terry mcintyre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
- Original Message
From: Rémi Coulom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For instance, against computers, I estimate that Crazy Stone improved
about 3 stones between this summer and now. But it clearly did not
improve 3 stones on
Don Dailey wrote:
By the way, I am no fan of C. I don't like C and have tried some of
the languages on your list of languages that are supposedly faster than
C.
I think you must be getting your information from the web pages for
those languages. As a general rule any reasonably fast
-Original Message-
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 6:30 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MC-UCT and tactical information
...
Change for the better seems to imply only a one-sided analysis.? I would
imagine
On Dec 14, 2007 12:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For purposes of discussion, let's say the bot takes a tactical snapshot
once at the root node and then uses that information to help pick a move. It
can apply it at the root, at internal nodes, at external nodes, or at the
very end (maybe it
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've done some dabbling (thought experiments) with how I'd like to cache
search results and I'm not yet happy with any of them. Not taking into
account miai and such logic could lead to excessive storage bloat. I'd
love to enter a discussion talking
Many Faces does on-line learning of Fuseki, Joseki, and half-board patterns.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunnar Farnebäck
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:28 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Hall
Yes, I agree with all your points.
FFTW works by building test cases and testing them on the specific
processor it runs on. In other words, under program control, many
versions are produced just to see which one actually runs fastest.I
know the inventer of FFTW (Mateo Frigo of MIT) who
-Original Message-
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MC-UCT and tactical information
So, what tactical information should be calculated, how should it be used, and
yes how
Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
Also, even though we can ask people to never change their program unless
they give it a new login name, we can't enforce that, nor is it
reasonable to try. I might have a program with an on-line learning
algorithm which improves itself over
Darren Cook wrote:
I wonder if you had anything to say on how the development was? I'm
especially interested if you think if there was some aspect of the way
libego is written that made it either hard work for you, or made it
inefficient to wrap?
I don't think so, beyond being written in C++
I, first, noticed that I might have readers especially Don
misleading with my previous mail. I used we for the participants
of cgos not I and Don. I'm sorry if any.
Has Hall of fame with incorrect ratings any sense? Rather, it may
wrongly leads pepole, isn't it?
I won't discuss farther as Don
Cgos 19x19 is back.
I hope electricity is stable :-)
Olivier
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
19 matches
Mail list logo
