> From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 10:13 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
> > Some language may make it easy to encapsulate information gleaned
> > during local searches into a kind of "short term memory" and exploit
> > that to speed up evaluation of many branches of the search tree. Who
> > knows? We have a long way to go before playing at the pro level on a
> > 19x19 board.
>
> I'm a firm believer that computer "I.Q." is directly correlated with
> processing power. In this case, the ability to win at GO for a
> computer is going to be a function of the CPU performance and memory
> capacity.
>
> Some languages will facilitate the exploration of ideas exactly as you
> say. But at some level it will come down to an efficient
> implementation. One can always take a good idea, and then
> re-implement it in a boring but very fast execution language such as C
> or assembly. It would be a shame to have to do this however if you
> already have a language that can really express the idea superbly.
At some level, this is true; it comes down to crafting an efficient
implementation; but some languages make it easier to express some ideas than
others. For instance, some languages make it very natural to perform operations
on every element of an aggregate - a list, set, array, or whatever - without
having to express the details of the loop.
Haskell, among other languages, makes it easy to embed Domain Specific
Languages in one's program; one can imagine a program which expresses
Go-specific terms in a very natural way. C/C++ with MPI is not the last word on
multiprocessing support; other languages probably do it better. Functional
languages permit much lighter-weight concurrency and multiprocessing, avoiding
the need for locks and semaphores.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
