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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Charles Hixson Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/01 Message-ID: <35EC7374.765541F2@earthlink.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 386937028 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@news.erols.com> <6sdiav$e0g$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35ead1be.659708@news.erols.com> <6sfc2r$6ph$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35eb36d9.729148@news.erols.com> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: Tue Sep 1 15:19:25 1998 Organization: Mandala Fluteworks Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Possibly instead of discussing what the original documents said, years before any (or at least any common) languages supported structured programming, we should talk about either our own experiences, or about studies of people using structured languages (since most of them contain facilities enabling non-structured programming also). I was impressed by structured programming when I first read a book describing how to do it in PL/1, and immediately started trying to restructure the FORTRAN programs that I was writing. This was NOT encouraged by the language design, but the results were encouraging enough to convince me to switch to more structured languages as they became available to me. They did NOT convince me that EVERYTHING should be structured. I feel free to allow myself one unstructrued construct per routine, provided that it is well documented, and has only local effect. I rarely need this permission, but sometimes I do. If I need two unstructured constructs, then I try REALLY HARD to break the routine in half. This rule keeps the routines intelligible, and lets me do whatever I need to do. Theory is great, and I try to be guided by those theories that I consider best. But I am, at heart, a practitioner, and my test for how good I think a theory is, is "How well can I use this?"