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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Loryn Jenkins <loryn@s054.aone.net.au>
Subject: Re: Which wastes more time? (Was Re: Software landmines (loops))
Date: 1998/09/05
Message-ID: <35F06A58.F968BDE1@s054.aone.net.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 387987660
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <l5HC1.6840$wN.1856764@news.giganews.com>
 <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk>
 <m3ogt3qgca.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com>
 <6sebjr$b69$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6sff74$q0s@gurney.reilly.home>
 <6sh2j5$jnl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35EC2E5A.16DB6CB1@bigfoot-.com>
 <6sjc0a$1lk$3@news.indigo.ie> <EyoHK2.BD@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl>
 <35EFB09E.15412933@s054.aone.net.au> <35f2bd98.40599408@news.erols.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 904948348 8539 203.102.238.26 (4 Sep 1998
 22:32:28 GMT)
Organization: TekRite Pty Ltd
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: loryn@acm.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Sep 1998 22:32:28 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-04T22:32:28+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> And amongst those especially the ones who are most effective in
> exposing the purely fictitious basis of the arguments held by their
> opposition.  Eh?  :-}

Not at all, Elliot.

I think that Matthew Heaney has produced the overall best contributions
to this thread on the side of those who like 'tree-structured' rather
than 'structured' programming.

He is obviously not a "combatorial" participant, but he is an eloquent
one.

Some others, on the other hand, have flagrantly violated:
1) good manners
2) good sense
3) any sense of academic honesty (which includes, of course, refusing to
investigate the published sources that inspired this debate so many
years ago)

It is possible to disagree with someone without calling insults. It is
possible to have someone disagree with you because they value different
principles to yours. But that doesn't give one the right to name call.

Really. Kindergarten children often learn more manners than is
displayed, from time to time, on this list.

I have named no names. But if your conscience bothers you; listen to it.
Think about how to present your case, your arguments, in ways that play
the ball, and not the man.

Loryn Jenkins