Life In 19x19

RBerenguel wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

quantumf wrote:As VB.NET is equivalent to c# in essentially every way, it's clearly an object oriented language by design. It has the flavour of basic, with it's terms and symbols, and in a concession to VB6 programmers, it allows a procedural, non-OO form. I have developed multiple large (object oriented) systems with VB.NET, and find it a perfectly comfortable OO language

On error resume next

On erro goto....

Clearly not OO or easy to manage in large projects. I find these constructs especially discomforting, and especially error prone, for anything but the simplest of code. Not to mention, that sooner or later in large projects you have to do an N^2 or N*log(n) operation like sorts or searches, then it pretty much crawls to a halt. Furthermore, VB programmers like many single language programmers fail to recognize the relative disadvantages of their language, and are generally thin skinned and uncool about it. After all if it were object oriented then they shouldn't feel that it is too difficult to use another language in the first place, but again this is not the case.

Like object-orientedness was the panacea to solve everything. Lisp programmers are pretty much happy without ever resorting to CLOS. Go has interfaces and structs and it works pretty well. The example above? This is error handling. Error handling is good, and there's no need to add object-mumbo-jumbo to do it. Quite likely the problem this code had was orthogonality, or quite more likely, a bad maintainer.

Absence of OO(or pointers) becomes painfully obvious in large projects, so much so that many languages fake it. Anyway, VB error handling with a bunch of goto's is lame, generally speaking OO programming doesn't have goto's.

So what? Error handling with gotos, if done well is perfectly fine. Seems like someone drank too much Dijkstra kool-aid.

RBerenguel wrote:So what? Error handling with gotos, if done well is perfectly fine. Seems like someone drank too much Dijkstra kool-aid.

Done well VB programmers nah, that wouldn't be quick and easy, if they wanted to do it well they wouldn't use error prone goto.

Quite a big ego to dismiss all VB programmers.

RBerenguel wrote:Quite a big ego to dismiss all VB programmers.

Oh yeah, I get a kick out of pointing out that VB programmers aren't very good, reminds me of the good old days when I graded VB sections as a TA as a service for the business school. Sure there might have been an enthusiastic and intelligent one in the bunch, but then they wouldn't have problems with moving beyond VB.

SmoothOper wrote:

RBerenguel wrote:Quite a big ego to dismiss all VB programmers.

Oh yeah, I get a kick out of pointing out that VB programmers aren't very good, reminds me of the good old days when I graded VB sections as a TA as a service for the business school. Sure there might have been an enthusiastic and intelligent one in the bunch, but then they wouldn't have problems with moving beyond VB.

Well, I graded a lot of C assignments for computer science's introduction to algorithms and for numerical analysis in mathematics. And I won't say all C programmers suck because most of the CS students made an incredibly lousy job.

RBerenguel wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

RBerenguel wrote:Quite a big ego to dismiss all VB programmers.

Oh yeah, I get a kick out of pointing out that VB programmers aren't very good, reminds me of the good old days when I graded VB sections as a TA as a service for the business school. Sure there might have been an enthusiastic and intelligent one in the bunch, but then they wouldn't have problems with moving beyond VB.

Well, I graded a lot of C assignments for computer science's introduction to algorithms and for numerical analysis in mathematics. And I won't say all C programmers suck because most of the CS students made an incredibly lousy job.

I'm just saying I think you miss the point about why people program in VB in the first place, and it isn't for the OO features or good error handling, they don't care about that, they program in VB because they think it is easy, but it turns out to make OO more difficult. Furthermore, I have seen enough VB programmers code to know that this is generally the case. So, my ego is quite fine thank you.

No. You code in whatever language you are told. I had to code in f***ing VB for Applications once, because I had to make something work inside Excel for a client. Ended up doing it in Python and writing a small interaction layer in VBA, no way I'm doing SOAP with VB (not like the SOAP library for Python was great, had to fix it to get the WDSL file working). But as a programmer, you get into whatever there is. I'd rather code directly in binary than touching PHP, but when my coworkers or boss tells me to code something in PHP, "aye sir". I won't rewrite 8k lines of PHP in Go (or Lisp, C, or whatever other language I'm proficient at) just because I don't like the feature set.

A VB.net codebase could have been started as VB.net because a former (or current) worker is just one of the best in the world with the language (you know what? Even in "bad" languages there are people that can run in circles around you.) You don't like goto's for error handling? Fine, but the codebase is like this, take it or leave it. You like type checking? Either turn on strict or use descriptive variable names for type handling. You think OO is "the best evah" and goto's are a sin born in hell? Well, programming (and programming languages) has many facets, and you just know how to use one (and can't be sure about that). Learn more, or STFU.

RBerenguel wrote:No. You code in whatever language you are told. I had to code in f***ing VB for Applications once, because I had to make something work inside Excel for a client. Ended up doing it in Python and writing a small interaction layer in VBA, no way I'm doing SOAP with VB (not like the SOAP library for Python was great, had to fix it to get the WDSL file working). But as a programmer, you get into whatever there is. I'd rather code directly in binary than touching PHP, but when my coworkers or boss tells me to code something in PHP, "aye sir". I won't rewrite 8k lines of PHP in Go (or Lisp, C, or whatever other language I'm proficient at) just because I don't like the feature set.

A VB.net codebase could have been started as VB.net because a former (or current) worker is just one of the best in the world with the language (you know what? Even in "bad" languages there are people that can run in circles around you.) You don't like goto's for error handling? Fine, but the codebase is like this, take it or leave it. You like type checking? Either turn on strict or use descriptive variable names for type handling. You think OO is "the best evah" and goto's are a sin born in hell? Well, programming (and programming languages) has many facets, and you just know how to use one (and can't be sure about that). Learn more, or STFU.

I agree, up to a point. I have maintained and worked on projects that consisted of thousands of lines of VBA, which they never put on the job listing. I think it is fair for myself to point out that this is a brain dead way of doing things, and to "rub their noses in it" whenever I can get away with doing so. First things first they want to do it the easy way, the next thing is they want to be all egotistical about their little scripts, so funny. Then they write thousands of lines of code that becomes unmanageable, and jump ship. Hilarious. I've seen VB projects that had rigid project testing that had dozens upon dozens of bugs every testing cycle, with little or no new code, just bug after bug...

Current version of the program tells me that :

"Nobi" -> ok
"Peep" -> ok
but "Shoulder hit"... is this a shoulder hit ? from below

A shoulder hit is only from above: the hitter must be nearer the centre than the hitee so you can't use pure local pattern matching. It's normal for it to be 4th line hitting 3rd but not necessary. Also both stones should be single stones with 4 liberties.

There is this paper from last year:

http://gostyle.j2m.cz/PAPERS/2013-07-Ev ... e_Records/

And in PDF-format:
http://gostyle.j2m.cz/FILES/2013-07-Eva ... ecords.pdf

I remember there was a website where you could post a link to your KGS-account in the archives and it would give you statistics for shape and style. And also give you some names of pros who had similar style. They would also estimate your rank according to your shape habits, and I remember that estimate got better and better. I believe it was the same guys behind that website as this paper, but I'm not sure. Also can't remember where the site could be found.

Anyone else knows?

EDIT: Ah, here it is http://gostyle.j2m.cz/webapp.html

Kanin wrote:There is this paper from last year:

http://gostyle.j2m.cz/PAPERS/2013-07-Ev ... e_Records/

And in PDF-format:
http://gostyle.j2m.cz/FILES/2013-07-Eva ... ecords.pdf

I remember there was a website where you could post a link to your KGS-account in the archives and it would give you statistics for shape and style. And also give you some names of pros who had similar style. They would also estimate your rank according to your shape habits, and I remember that estimate got better and better. I believe it was the same guys behind that website as this paper, but I'm not sure. Also can't remember where the site could be found.

Anyone else knows?

EDIT: Ah, here it is http://gostyle.j2m.cz/webapp.html

Yeah, they were the same guys. Used pachi's capabilities, interesting paper & site

Uberdude wrote:A shoulder hit is only from above: the hitter must be nearer the centre than the hitee so you can't use pure local pattern matching. It's normal for it to be 4th line hitting 3rd but not necessary. Also both stones should be single stones with 4 liberties.

Thx Uberdude, just to be sure, that means that is not a shoulder hit ? as it is not a single stone right ?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . |
$$ . . , O . . |
$$ . X 1 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . |[/go]

oca wrote:

Uberdude wrote:A shoulder hit is only from above: the hitter must be nearer the centre than the hitee so you can't use pure local pattern matching. It's normal for it to be 4th line hitting 3rd but not necessary. Also both stones should be single stones with 4 liberties.

Thx Uberdude, just to be sure, that means that is not a shoulder hit ? as it is not a single stone right ?

$$B
$$ . . . . . . |
$$ . . , O . . |
$$ . X 1 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . |
$$ . . , O . . |
$$ . X 1 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . |[/go]

I wouldn't call this a shoulder hit. Usually shoulder-hitting is a mean to a cause: flatten/split the opponent. Having another stone nearby means there was a previous move doing something there, losing this active meaning. My 2 cents, Uberdude will explain it more clearly and rightly