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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cme!leake
From: leake@cme.nbs.gov (Stephe Leake)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Another reason for goto
Message-ID: <849@primus.cme.nbs.gov>
Date: 18 Jan 89 16:11:19 GMT
References: <8901171823.AA20919@bx.sei.cmu.edu> <820@afit-ab.arpa>
Distribution: na
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
In-reply-to: wbralick@afit-ab.arpa's message of 18 Jan 89 04:43:54 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <820@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes:

   ...

   However, I have yet to see a case where the goto is *necessary*  It is
   a direct tweek at the program counter and is generally at too low a 
   level of abstraction for a HOL.  If time (and space) are that critical
   in a given section of code you should "goto" C (using pragma interface)
   or assembler if absolutely necessary.

Ada can be either a High level language, _or_ a low-level one. Why
should I abandon strong typing just because I need to do something
fast? If I need a fast subroutine, I write it in "low-level" ada; no
tasks, exceptions, etc; I would feel free to use a goto (although I
have yet to see a need for one). In fact, in Ada I can use single
precision, which can often cut execution in half!

Lets not limit ourselves by arbitrary notions that _all_ Ada code must
be high-level and abstract.

Stephe Leake 	(301) 975-3431 		leake@cme.nbs.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(formerly National Bureau of Standards)
Rm. B-124, Bldg. 220
Gaithersburg, MD  20899