From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,68321983359cf306 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: Use of 'goto' Date: 1997/07/03 Message-ID: <33BC2A6F.414F@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 254349037 References: <01bc7c39$64813260$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> Organization: EDS MS Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mike linnig wrote: > > Spagetti code is bad, spagetti code uses gotos, therefore goto is bad. A false conclusion from a false premise, even if you allow use of "pons asinorum" (B, A=>B, therefore A). Spaghetti code need not use GOTO, and some of the worst examples I've seen did not. > I think training is a better way to make good code than arbitrary restrictions > on easy to notice features. But there's no money in the budget for QA and training; we've put it all into bug fixes, and don't understand why there are so many of them. > This raises the visibilty to the person responsible for > getting the job done and 'teaches' the programmer that goto's are a construct > that should not be used lightly. IMHO *no* control sturcture should be used lightly; the programmer should understand what he is doing and why. Silly of me. > Mike Linnig -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz.