You are on the backup site for Chessvariants.com. Any posts, moves, or other changes you make here will not be permanent, because the pages and database from the main site will be backed up here every midnight EST. Additionally, things may not be working right, because this site is also a testbed for newer system software. So, if you are not here to test, develop, or merely read this site, you may want to change .org to .com in the navigation bar and go to the main site.



The Chess Variant Pages




[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

Mad Queen Shogi. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Sam Trenholme wrote on 2008-11-27 UTC
Just glancing at Axiom real briefly, one issue is that it uses a stack-based language (Forth). I don't think it makes much sense to use a stack based language these days except for ultra-embedded applications like robotics and what not. I have never really tried learning a stack based language; I mean I do get reverse polish notation, but it just doesn't feel right to me.

I think the issue is that a stack-based language is what a linguist calls an 'Object Subject Verb' (OSV) language, which are extremely rare in human languages. Languages are usually 'Subject Verb Object' (SVO) languages (English; Spanish; 'a = 2' in programming languages), which is what most programming languages use. Function calls emulate the form of 'Verb Subject Object' (VSO, such as Irish; 'f(a,2)' in programming languages) languages, however, as it turns out.

So, yeah, I think Axiom might get more users if it used a more common language than Forth.

- Sam

Edit: Looking at it a little more, it's nice to finally see a Zillions implementation of Tanbo, which Axiom made possible. I don't see any Chess variants, however.