On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 10:21:14PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
From: William Harold Newman william.newman@airmail.net References: 20010815145635.A5952@rootless 200108152144.RAA04457@silk.supertech
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 05:44:17PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Both GMP and IGS protocol support undo. How many programs actually use it?
What user interface is complete without undo?
Which is more important, to standardize a protocol which implements a complete user interface, or to standardize a protocol which does a good job on the features that programs actually use when interfacing to other programs (including servers and multitool-things like cgoban)?
The answer? BOTH! I say this out of my own needs. I want to build a really cool interface that everyone can use. Can't do it with GMP.
Last night as I was driving to the Dallas Go Club, I got to wondering..
Why do you want a go-playing engine to use text commands to interface to your really cool interface? Isn't it more normal, and convenient, for a user interface to talk to a program through a set of functions callable from C or Java or whatever?
If you want a protocol that lets lots of different combinations of computers play Go against each other, then TCP looks natural, and then text commands make sense.
If you want an engine to be able to present a GUI, why mess with TCP?
Are you thinking of an interface to an IGS-style server, as opposed to an interface to a Go-playing engine?