From: bboett@bboett.dyndns.org (Bruno Boettcher)
To: xconq7@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Xconq language thoughts
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:52:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031120104854.GW387@adlp.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OOEALCJCKEBJBIJHCNJDGEBGGMAB.vanevery@indiegamedesign.com>
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:55:48AM -0800, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Almost nobody is interested in writing AI in C. Some will want to do
> C++, "for the performance." Others, like myself, find C++ to be a poor
> fit to the AI tasks they want to implement. People like that pick
> Python or some other higher level language.
i fear i have to concur with Brandon on this....
see below...
> One question is how much coding is needed to get an AI going. It's not
> enough to have a separable layer. It must be a *doable* layer.
one good point...
> > I don't actually buy that reasoning. Programmers who are really
> > interested are
> > willing to key in machine code using toggle switches if they have to;
i am giving C++ and Java courses among others, and i took down a IBM -
JAVA project of a robot battle arena. The students got all exited over
it, and are now happily playing with it producing lots of different ai's
to control those battle bots.....
strong of that experience i dug out a similar project in C++ for the
same named course.... and it was a big flop....
the difference?
the java projects proposes a full blown set of allreading and very
easily usable primiteves that you only need to plug together to get a
first bot running, whilst the C++ bots needs a hell of programming to
get just the basic parts working....
as often you encounter the paradigm: you use C/C++? then you are
qualified to do things the hard way... you use Java (same goes for
python BTW) then you are considered stupid enough to be given
powerfull ready tools into your hands....
ergo: we need not only a good abstraction layer defined through a set of
interfaces, we need also easy to use and combinable basic actions to
attract people into that area...
and concerning touching the code: i tryed several times to dig into
xconq sources, but allways managed to break things at different
parts.... so mee too i would really prefer a true OO design to all
this... encapsulation is nice ;)
--
ciao bboett
==============================================================
bboett@adlp.org
http://inforezo.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett
===============================================================
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-11-20 10:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-20 2:16 Stan Shebs
2003-11-20 2:47 ` Brandon J. Van Every
2003-11-20 3:05 ` Stan Shebs
2003-11-20 9:47 ` Brandon J. Van Every
2003-11-20 10:52 ` Bruno Boettcher [this message]
2003-11-20 15:10 ` Peter Garrone
2003-11-20 11:15 Brandon J. Van Every
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20031120104854.GW387@adlp.org \
--to=bboett@bboett.dyndns.org \
--cc=bboett@adlp.org \
--cc=xconq7@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).