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: 103376,14f7200925acb579 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Jeff Carter Subject: Re: No Go To's Forever! Date: 2000/03/23 Message-ID: <38D9B88B.366CC1AE@acm.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 601207997 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <38D7B41D.B3494C6A@lmco.com> <8b9bov$k3m$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 953796245 63.10.52.20 (Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:24:05 PST) Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: jrcarter@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:24:05 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-03-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Richard D Riehle wrote: > When Dijkstra wrote his letter to the Communications of the ACM > in 1968, "Goto Considered Harmful," lots of people read the > title but not the letter. Quite true. For example, IIRC the letter was about program correctness proofs, and argued that the goto made such proofs much harder, not that the goto made human understanding or modification of software harder. Few of us perform correctness proofs, but we avoid the goto because it usually makes the software harder to understand and modify. I think the message that started this was a troll; I'm sure the author is please at the response generated. -- Jeff Carter "English bed-wetting types." Monty Python & the Holy Grail