Two robots chasing each other 
Author Message
 Two robots chasing each other

I've once read a book that I'm now looking for again but I can't
remember the name anymore.

It had a cool discussion on game tree programming. Two robots move on a
grid (like a chess board). The one robot has to catch the other one
while both of them can move only one square at a time. The interresting
part was that they planned ahead and made provision for moves that the
other one would make in response to their current move. It was a classic
example of the minimax algorithm.

Can anybody tell me what that book's name is or, for that matter, any
other similar book please?

Regards
Dwald



Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Two robots chasing each other


Quote:
>I've once read a book that I'm now looking for again but I can't
>remember the name anymore.

>It had a cool discussion on game tree programming. Two robots move on a
>grid (like a chess board). The one robot has to catch the other one
>while both of them can move only one square at a time. The interresting
>part was that they planned ahead and made provision for moves that the
>other one would make in response to their current move. It was a classic
>example of the minimax algorithm.

You have cross-posted this to comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ but
I don't see anywhere in it a question about the C or C++ programming
languages. It seems to be a question about gams programming so it
would be logical to post it to a games programming newsgroup such
as comp.games.development.programming.algorithms.

--
-----------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------



Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Two robots chasing each other
No actually it is a question regarding tree data structures. Since I
primarily code in C/C++, I make frequent use of these two NG's. I figured
that other C/C++ programmers would best answer my question even if you are
able to code the problem in any other language.

If you re-read the question you'll find that I was looking for a certain text
book. Since it was a C++ text book covering the topic of trees I would
concider it stupid not to inquire about it in a C/C++ NG.

Dwald

Quote:



> >I've once read a book that I'm now looking for again but I can't
> >remember the name anymore.

> >It had a cool discussion on game tree programming. Two robots move on a
> >grid (like a chess board). The one robot has to catch the other one
> >while both of them can move only one square at a time. The interresting
> >part was that they planned ahead and made provision for moves that the
> >other one would make in response to their current move. It was a classic
> >example of the minimax algorithm.

> You have cross-posted this to comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ but
> I don't see anywhere in it a question about the C or C++ programming
> languages. It seems to be a question about gams programming so it
> would be logical to post it to a games programming newsgroup such
> as comp.games.development.programming.algorithms.

> --
> -----------------------------------------


> -----------------------------------------



Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Two robots chasing each other
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:08:52 +0200, "Dwald Swanepoel"

Quote:

>No actually it is a question regarding tree data structures. Since I
>primarily code in C/C++, I make frequent use of these two NG's. I figured
>that other C/C++ programmers would best answer my question even if you are
>able to code the problem in any other language.

>If you re-read the question you'll find that I was looking for a certain text
>book. Since it was a C++ text book covering the topic of trees I would
>concider it stupid not to inquire about it in a C/C++ NG.

Hi.
You didn't post to a C/C++ ng. You cross-posted. One group discusses C
and the other C++. My guess is if you hear it often enough it will
sink in. In comp.lang.c the topic of discussion is the C programming
language. I don't often frequent comp.lang.c++ though when I do,
despite more tolerance for off-topic posting, I understand the
principle to be the same. It seems to take some people longer then
others to understand the idea that a programming language is an
entitiy seperate from algortihms or I/O devices. The language is not
the extensions created to deal with the challenges and opportunities
presented by various platforms it is used on. Some people seem to feel
this is a limitation that would leave little of interest to discuss
and yet comp.lang.c has been here and been lively for a very long
time. It will continue to be and if you continue to post messages
which are not relevant you can expect people to continue to defend its
topicality. This would not surprise you had you read the group for any
length of time.
Regards,
Greg Martin.


Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Two robots chasing each other
[snips]


Quote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:08:52 +0200, "Dwald Swanepoel"

> principle to be the same. It seems to take some people longer then
> others to understand the idea that a programming language is an
> entitiy seperate from algortihms

Hmm.  The usual rationale I see for that - excluding algorithms - is that
since they can be expressed in any language, therefore they are not specific
to _a_ language, therefore they don't belong in a specific language
newsgroup.

So far so good, but function names and variables aren't always - or even
frequently - specific to a language, other than for predefined variables and
functions.  Therefore, applying the reasoning against algorithms, any
mention of a variable or function name which isn't part of the predefined
set offered by the standard should also be off-topic.  Now that *would* make
such newsgroups deadly dull - but it's a direct effect of the usual
rationale for eliminating algorithms.

I could see a limitation such as "things which cannot be expressed in ANSI
compliant C don't belong in comp.lang.c", but that would let variables,
functions *and* algorithms in.  So, do we let algorithms in, or do we toss
variables and functions out?  Or do we fix the usual rationale? :)



Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Two robots chasing each other

Quote:

> [snips]



> > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:08:52 +0200, "Dwald Swanepoel"

> > principle to be the same. It seems to take some people longer then
> > others to understand the idea that a programming language is an
> > entitiy seperate from algortihms

> Hmm.  The usual rationale I see for that - excluding algorithms - is that
> since they can be expressed in any language, therefore they are not specific
> to _a_ language, therefore they don't belong in a specific language
> newsgroup.

> So far so good, but function names and variables aren't always - or even
> frequently - specific to a language, other than for predefined variables and
> functions.  Therefore, applying the reasoning against algorithms, any
> mention of a variable or function name which isn't part of the predefined
> set offered by the standard should also be off-topic.  

Change your major to sophistry.  Better, change to "transparently
fallacious sophistry."

--

__________________________________________________________
Fight spam now!
Get your free anti-spam service: http://www.brightmail.com



Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Two robots chasing each other

Quote:

> Hmm.  The usual rationale I see for that - excluding algorithms - is that
> since they can be expressed in any language, therefore they are not specific
> to _a_ language, therefore they don't belong in a specific language
> newsgroup.

> So far so good, but function names and variables aren't always - or even
> frequently - specific to a language, other than for predefined variables and
> functions.  Therefore, applying the reasoning against algorithms, any
> mention of a variable or function name which isn't part of the predefined
> set offered by the standard should also be off-topic.  Now that *would* make
> such newsgroups deadly dull - but it's a direct effect of the usual
> rationale for eliminating algorithms.

> I could see a limitation such as "things which cannot be expressed in ANSI
> compliant C don't belong in comp.lang.c", but that would let variables,
> functions *and* algorithms in.  So, do we let algorithms in, or do we toss
> variables and functions out?  Or do we fix the usual rationale? :)

        It's really pretty simple. comp.lang.X newsgroups are for discussions
of issues specifically relating to language X. Not specific
implementations of X (too narrow) and not implementation issues that
apply to several languages (too broad). There are reasonable exceptions
to both these rules.

        For example, "Compiler X allowed this construct but compiler Y didn't,
which is right?" Note that asking which is _right_ is a question about
the language, and not really about compiler X or Y. The compilers simply
serve as examples of different ways the construct could be responded to,
but the question is about the language.

        Similarly, consider a question like, "Algorithm Y is difficult to
implement in language X because it doesn't have feature Z?'. This is
really more a question about a feature of the language, and not really
about the particular algorithm. The algorithm serves merely to show why
the lack of feature Z is relevant.

        Obviously off-topic would be questions like:

        How can I get compiler X to work?

        What are some good algorithms for solving problem X?

        The original post is off-topic because it is not about C or C++. The
newsgroup was (admittedly) used just to find a group of people who he
felt would be knowledgeable. This is based upon a deception -- he
promises us talk about C or C++ to get us to read his post, but then he
ambushes us with something else entirely. He admits the deception. He
admits the false promise. He just doesn't see the error of his ways.

        DS



Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Two robots chasing each other
[snips]


Quote:
> The original post is off-topic because it is not about C or C++. The
> newsgroup was (admittedly) used just to find a group of people who he
> felt would be knowledgeable. This is based upon a deception -- he
> promises us talk about C or C++ to get us to read his post, but then he
> ambushes us with something else entirely. He admits the deception. He
> admits the false promise. He just doesn't see the error of his ways.

Indeed; nor was I suggesting that his post was necessarily on-topic; I was
merely commenting on the amusing conclusions of what I've seen offered as
"reasoning" for considering _some_ posts off-topic, and how that
"reasoning", if applied consistently, leads inevitablt to a newsgroup not
worth having.  I note, also with amu{*filter*}t, that one respondant has written
this off as "sophistry" without so much as a comment as to why what I said
was incorrect or inapplicable - another perfect example of this sort of
"reasoning". :)

In any case, it wasn't a federal court issue, just a wry chuckle. :)



Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Two robots chasing each other


Quote:
> [snips]



> > principle to be the same. It seems to take some people longer then
> > others to understand the idea that a programming language is an
> > entitiy seperate from algortihms

> Hmm.  The usual rationale I see for that - excluding algorithms - is
that
> since they can be expressed in any language, therefore they are not
specific
> to _a_ language, therefore they don't belong in a specific language
> newsgroup.

> So far so good, but function names and variables aren't always - or
even
> frequently - specific to a language, other than for predefined
variables and
> functions.  Therefore, applying the reasoning against algorithms, any
> mention of a variable or function name which isn't part of the
predefined
> set offered by the standard should also be off-topic.  Now that
*would* make
> such newsgroups deadly dull - but it's a direct effect of the usual
> rationale for eliminating algorithms.

> I could see a limitation such as "things which cannot be expressed in
ANSI
> compliant C don't belong in comp.lang.c", but that would let
variables,
> functions *and* algorithms in.  So, do we let algorithms in, or do we
toss
> variables and functions out?  Or do we fix the usual rationale? :)

I don't see a problem with the usual rationale.  The algorithm
questions that are really on topic are those where there is
some difficulty in implementing the (already known) algorithm in
C.  Had the original poster struggled with passing as arguments
two-dimensional arrays that the robots are chasing each other in,
then topicality would be there (but so would FAQness, probably).
I don't get all fired up over off-topic posts, myself, but I think
that those who are looking for algorithms in general usually are
better off looking somewhere else, and can be told that without
too much grumpiness.

With regards to functions and variables, there are many C specific
factors to consider, such as the many identifiers reserved for various
uses, volatile, linkage, scope, arrays decaying to pointers and a lot
of other things.  I'm having trouble thinking of a question about
functions and variables that could be answered the same for many
imperative languages with no qualifications due to any C specific
features; can you suggest one?

The original poster was looking for a C++ book, and made the dubious
judgement that C programmers might also know of this book; I don't
think it was really an algorithm question in the first place.

--
MJSR

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.



Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Two robots chasing each other


Quote:

>I've once read a book that I'm now looking for again but I can't
>remember the name anymore.

>It had a cool discussion on game tree programming. Two robots move on a
>grid (like a chess board). The one robot has to catch the other one
>while both of them can move only one square at a time. The interresting
>part was that they planned ahead and made provision for moves that the
>other one would make in response to their current move. It was a
>classic example of the minimax algorithm.



Quote:

> If you re-read the question you'll find that I was looking for a
> certain text book. Since it was a C++ text book covering the
> topic of trees I would concider it stupid not to inquire about
> it in a C/C++ NG.

I've re-read the question and, just like the first time I read
it, it suggests to me that you are looking for a science fiction
book. You didn't say it was a text book, and you didn't say it
concerned C++.

So now we know that you are looking for a C++ text book which
discusses game algorithms. What does this have to do with the
C programming language?

Please confine such questions to the C++ groups (assuming they
consider them on-topic) or to groups about games-writing,
algorithms, or books.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.



Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 10 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Problem with programming in C/ Creating a Robot Chase Program

2. Chasing my tail : Can't trace this recursion

3. C++Robots Server (Monthly Post)

4. to mail robot or not to mailrobot?

5. Robot brains

6. C++Robots Server

7. Richard's C++Robots Server -- Monthly Post

8. C++Robots is Back!

9. C Robots

10. robot programming

11. Richard's C++Robots Server -- Monthly Post

12. Richard's C++Robots Server -- Monthly Post

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software